Vol. 3, No. 1

Spring 2020
JIPAThe Air Force

Journal of

Indo-Pacific Affairs

Chief of Staff, US Air Force

Gen David L. Goldfein, USAF

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

Lt Col Darin Gregg, 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.aupress@us.af.mil

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 Air Force Journal of Indo–Pacific Affairs ( JIPA) is a professional journal of the US 

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 Force 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.aupress@us.af.mil.

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 United States 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. 1 SPRING 2020

COMMAND LEVEL PERSPECTIVE

3 Demystifying the Indo-Pacific Theater

General CQ Brown, Jr., USAF

FEATURES

11 New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

Responding to China’s New Interventionist Foreign Policies

Major Maia Baker, New Zealand Army

40 The China Coast Guard

Shifting from Civilian to Military Control in the Era of Regional Uncertainty

Dr. Ulises Granados

59 Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

Dr. R. James Ferguson

VIEW

87 Assessing Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Defensive Air 

Operations Capabilities

Confronting Challenges in Unconventional Scenarios

Anant Mishra

BOOK REVIEW

95 China’s Maritime Gray Zone Operations 

Edited by Andrew S. Erickson and Ryan D. Martinson

Reviewed by Dr. John W. Tai
Editorial Advisors

Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., USAF, Commander, Pacific Air Forces

Gen Herbert J. Carlisle, USAF, Retired; President & CEO, National Defense Industrial Association

Amb. Daniel Shields, Retired, Department of State

Dr. Matthew C. Stafford, Chief Academic Officer, Air Education and Training Command

Lt Col Darin Gregg, 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 

Assistant 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 (New Zealand) 

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 

Indian Languages and Cultural Advisor 

University of Alabama at Birmingham 

Dr. Amit Gupta

Professor, International Security Studies

US Air War College

Dr. Akhlaque Haque 

Professor of Political Science and Public 

Administration 

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

Mr. Chris Kolakowski 

Director

General Douglas MacArthur Memorial 

Dr. Carlo Kopp 

Lecturer 

Monash University (Australia) 

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. 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. 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 

(New Zealand) 

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

Foreign Area Officer, Northeast Asia

Commodore Abhay Kumar Singh, retired 

Research Fellow 

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses 

(India) 

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 
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 3

COMMAND LEVEL PERSPECTIVE

Demystifying the Indo-Pacific Theater

General CQ Brown, Jr.

The Indo-Pacific Theater by-and-large, is a mystery to many. The focus of 

our nation and our Department of Defense (DOD) has long been oriented toward Europe, and more recently the Middle East, so that few 

Americans understand and appreciate the significance of the Indo-Pacific. For 

starters, 60 percent of the Earth’s population, or an estimated 4.5 billion people, 

reside within the Indo-Pacific region. Additionally, the Indo-Pacific region is responsible for 44 percent of the world’s trade, making its economic significance 

unparalleled. Five of the seven military treaties between the United States and our 

allies—Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand—are 

within the Indo-Pacific region. Conversely, four of the five stipulated National 

Defense Strategy (NDS) challenges are also tied to the Indo-Pacific: including 

Russia, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and violent extremist 

organizations. Many Americans are unaware of the complex history of Taiwan, 

the territorial disputes within the South China Sea, or even the location of many 

Pacific Island countries.

The Indo-Pacific region is unlike any other area of responsibility (AOR). It is 

unimaginably large. The Indo-Pacific Theater stretches from the coast of California to the western shore of India and from the Arctic to Antarctica. Said another 

way, from Hollywood to Bollywood and from polar bears to penguins. To expand 

upon this illustration using numbers: the Indo-Pacific AOR is roughly 52 percent 

of the Earth’s surface, or 100 million square miles, and it is mostly water. For 

reference, the continental United States is slightly more than 3 million square 

miles, and Europe covers approximately 4.766 million square miles (including 

European Russia and Greenland). Thus, the vast expanse of the Indo-Pacific creates a significant logistical challenge. Depending on the mode of transportation, 

it can take the better part of a day to multiple weeks to reach many locations 

within the region, making pre-positioning, requirement anticipation, communication, and domain awareness critical to any civil or military operation.

In addition to the expanse, the Indo-Pacific is also home to some of the world’s 

worst natural disasters. Typhoons, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes 

are commonplace within the region—each natural disaster putting a portion of 

the 4.5 billion residents at risk. The ability to overcome the spatial challenges of 

the region to provide relief when and where it is needed after a natural disaster has 

become a hallmark capability of our DOD. This noncombat-related capability is 
4 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Brown

respected by all nations, challenged by no nations, and often critical to developing 

alliances and partnerships.

Within the Indo-Pacific reside a number of dynamic and complex regional 

challenges with worldwide implications, including nuclear powers, disputed territories, ballistic missiles, and highly adaptive adversaries. Countering each of 

these challenges requires a whole-of-government approach in which the other 

three instruments of power understand that the military maintains a necessary 

level of readiness to backstop their combined efforts. Revisiting, in detail, the four 

NDS challenges in the Indo-Pacific validates this construct.

Challenges

The People’s Republic of China (PRC), first and foremost, has steadily risen to 

a credible potential adversary in every facet of power. Beijing has incrementally 

developed China’s combat capability, militarized the South China Sea, and inflicted a destabilizing effect within the region through coercion and intimidation 

tactics in an effort to establish a new normal. The PRC’s actions are defining a 

modern-day colonialism in which its practices entrap and diminish national sovereignty. While nations have recently become more vocal about the nefarious activities executed by the PRC, a comprehensive and coordinated effort is lacking.

Second, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) has significant focus on a more familiar 

foe, Russia. Russia is a shared threat between United States European Command 

(EUCOM), United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM), and United 

States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM). Moscow’s capabilities and 

willingness to employ those capabilities has maintained Russia as a relevant adversary. Similar to China, Russia is a nuclear power with diverse military capabilities that has sold military hardware and software to other nations—all while 

executing a complex information operations campaign to obscure their actions 

and true intentions. The recent combined activity between Russia and the PRC 

has raised concerns among many nations, making any narrative regarding regional 

security suspect.

The tension between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic 

of Korea (DPRK) is the third identified NDS challenge within the Indo-Pacific 

region. Despite recent diplomatic efforts, the DPRK remains a viable threat. 

Pyongyang’s continued efforts to develop offensive missile capability destabilizes 

the region as a whole as it holds American forces, allies, and partners at risk.

Finally, violent extremist organizations (VEO) seek to impose their views and 

radicalize people across the globe by attacking vulnerabilities. VEOs gain footholds in underdeveloped geographic areas and rapidly spread ideologies that are 

inflicting as much terror as possible. VEO activity within the Indo-Pacific region 
Demystifying the Indo-Pacific Theater

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 5

may not be as publicized as in the Middle East or Africa, but the threat and results are very real. The Siege of Marawi (Philippines), the Easter Sunday attacks 

on multiple churches in Sri Lanka, and the ongoing struggle within Indonesia to 

uncover terrorist cells are just a few examples of the VEO activity within the 

Indo-Pacific.

I say all of that to reinforce my next point: “The Indo-Pacific is the Department of Defense’s priority theater.”1 That sentiment is my belief and, for obvious 

reasons, my current focus, but those words are not mine. That phrase comes 

straight from the DOD Indo-Pacific Strategy Report published in June. The 

Indo-Pacific Strategy Report has expressed a vision to preserve a free-and-open 

Indo-Pacific (FOIP). All nations should be free of coercion in terms of security, 

values, and trade. In an effort to guarantee that freedom, INDOPACOM is 

committed to a safe, secure, and prosperous region benefiting all nations by promoting an Indo-Pacific that allows all nations to fly, sail, and operate in accordance with international laws. As described earlier, the Indo-Pacific is complex, 

diverse, and expansive. The realization of a FOIP vision is only possible by the 

willingness of free nations working together in coordination with American 

forces postured within the region.

Aligning with this belief, PACAF has developed a strategy concentrating on 

long-term strategic competition. There are three lines of effort that serve as the 

foundation of the PACAF strategy: (1) strengthening alliances and partnerships, 

(2) improving interoperability and lethality, and (3) developing operational concepts for great-power competition. These lines of effort vector PACAF’s actions 

to support a FOIP and reinforce my priorities for the command: to be ready, resilient, and postured for the future.

Strengthening Alliances and Partnerships

Strengthening alliances and partnerships is the first line of effort in PACAF for 

two reasons. Relationships provide the United States with a distinct asymmetric 

advantage over our adversaries and directly contributes to the collective ability to 

deter aggressive actions. By strengthening the United States’ relationships and developing new partnerships with nations in the Indo-Pacific region, we establish an 

environment in which we win before fighting. Next, should deterrence fail, the 

United States must be ready to fight and win. Critical to moving this idea from 

conceptual to reality is access. Alliances and partnerships provide the United States 

with many advantages. It is imperative for all military operations, from cooperation 

to conflict, that the United States have access to prepare, launch, execute, and recover to the airfields and ports within the region. Equally important is the collab-
6 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Brown

orative capacity to operate in a synchronized manner with American joint forces 

and the forces of other nations willing to fight alongside American personnel.

(US Air Force photo by SSgt Mikaley Kline)

Figure 1. Strong relationships. Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld, chief, Royal Australian Air Force; 

Gen Philippe Lavigne, chief of staff, French Air Force; Gen Yoshinari Marumo, chief, Japan 

Air Self-Defense Force; and Gen David L. Goldfein, chief of staff, US Air Force participate 

in a multi-domain operations panel during the 2019 Pacific Air Chiefs Symposium (PACS) 

at Joint Base Pearl Harbor–Hickam, Hawaii, 5 December 2019. The theme of PACS 19, “A 

Collaborative Approach to Regional Security,” focused on building mutual understanding 

of varied regional perspectives through bilateral engagements and multinational panels 

and meetings.

It is my experience that the most effective way to strengthen alliances and recruit new partners is through presence and personal engagement. The United 

States recognizes and respects the different levels of interoperability that are possible from each opportunity to interact with foreign nations, ranging from coalition warfare to regional security initiatives to humanitarian assistance/disaster 

relief (HADR). Combining personal engagement and presence with the capability and desired outcome of any nation is the genesis of fortified relationships 

within the region.

Analyzing the Indo-Pacific in terms of subregions facilitates a better understanding and empathetic approach to tailor our lens toward each nation. No two 

countries are alike, and applying a cookie-cutter approach to partnerships is generally unsuccessful. As a result, the AOR can be subdivided into four subregional 

objectives: Reorient Northeast Asia, Strengthen Southeast Asia, Secure Oceania, 

and Create Opportunities in South Asia.
Demystifying the Indo-Pacific Theater

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 7

Northeast Asia

Any discussion referencing Northeast Asia starts by recognizing the threats. 

Despite the recent relational thawing between the United States and the DPRK, 

Pyongyang remains the most immediate threat to peace within the AOR. Additionally, both China and Russia are located within Northeast Asia and are the 

focus of our long-term threat picture. Our alliances with Japan and South Korea 

provide balance to counter three of the five named NDS challenges within the 

Northeast Asia region.

Southeast Asia

Shifting the focus to Southeast Asia, there are similar threats as well as opportunities to expand American partnerships within the region. First, PACAF 

supports measures to strengthen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN), expand multilateralism, and improve the combined security capacity 

within the region. With Thailand, the United States’ oldest Asian ally, we are still 

finding ways to enhance training opportunities, bolster interoperability, and increase mutually beneficial security agreements. In Indonesia, PACAF is expanding HADR training and establishing avenues to increase information sharing. 

Singapore supports a strong American presence and consistently pursues training 

opportunities with the United States to increase the city-state’s overall military 

response capabilities. Malaysia has opened the aperture to strengthening ties with 

the United States through mutual areas of interest, including expanding collaboration, information sharing, and maritime-domain awareness. Finally, there are 

growing opportunities with Vietnam, which assumed the chair for ASEAN in 

2020 and pursues US capabilities.

Oceania

Securing Oceania involves an area that spans from Antarctica to Micronesia, 

making the efforts executed today to enforce international norms in coordination 

with New Zealand, Australia, and Japan even more critical. The Antarctica Treaty 

is up for review in 2048. By preserving the “research” status of the Antarctic continent, we not only dissuade activities that are not research-related but also bolster 

our relationships with like-minded nations.

Securing Oceania goes beyond the climate-related challenges within the Antarctic. As a result, PACAF, in concert with the interagency departments, has made 

an effort to reaffirm US presence and commitment to the three states in the Compact of Free Association: the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of 

Micronesia. Reiterating the United States’ desire to be a partner of choice and not 
8 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Brown

a partner of coercion is widening the aperture for stronger relationships with 

those nations.

South Asia

Creating South Asia opportunities is another area where PACAF is actively 

working to enhance our relationships. India, as one of our “Major Defense Partners,” provides opportunities for PACAF to actively expand our relationship by 

increasing training opportunities through our exercise program. In addition to the 

increase in training opportunities, India and the United States signed the Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018, facilitating greater information sharing between the two nations.

Improving Interoperability and Lethality

PACAF’s second line of effort is to focus on improving interoperability and 

lethality. Last year, PACAF Airmen led 29 of the robust 54 total exercises scheduled within the Indo-Pacific region to improve all aspects of military capability. 

These simulations covered flying training exercises, command post exercises, humanitarian assistance training, and joint exercises with an end goal of producing 

a better-prepared joint and coalition force. Additionally, the command scheduled 

and executed Airman-to-Airman talks, subject matter expert exchanges, and senior enlisted forums. Each of these personal engagements, regardless of topic or 

complexity, bolsters the foundation of our relationships with the participating 

nations. Simultaneously, these training avenues allow us to identify knowledge 

gaps, improve processes, and synchronize our efforts as a collective force. It is as 

simple as this: security for America and the region is inextricably linked to the 

number of nations we train with and the number of times we exercise together.

Developing Operational Concepts for Great-Power Competition

This leads us to PACAF’s third and final line of effort: developing operational 

concepts for great-power competition. As with any other time in our history, the 

challenges that we face today are unlike any other we have faced before. To hone 

the development of our operational concepts for today’s challenges, we have to 

understand what great-power competition means. The PACAF definition of competitors is a spectrum that establishes a nation as somewhere between friends and 

adversaries. The artificial spectrum places the United States on a playing field in 

which the competition plays out in a “gray zone,” or below the level of conflict. 

Conceptually, this has led PACAF to expedite efforts that challenge our status 
Demystifying the Indo-Pacific Theater

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 9

quo. As we integrate fifth-generation weapons systems into the Air Force, we 

need to bring the Air Force into the fifth generation.

The vision of a fifth-generation Air Force is based on the actualization of concepts such as agile combat employment, revision of command-and-control models, and implementation of multi-domain operation proposals. PACAF’s ability to 

posture and operate in a number of locations, proven through its prior preparation, enables us to be a more dynamic operating force. The cornerstone of our 

operating concept is agile combat employment, or ACE. ACE enables us to operate from locations with varying levels of capacity and support, ensuring Airmen 

are postured in a position of advantage to generate combat power. PACAF is 

taking measured steps to distance itself from the idea of big bases and War Reserve Materiel to pre-positioning essential items through regional base cluster 

positioning operations. Essentially, our operating concepts revolve around our 

coordinated ability to become lighter, leaner, and more agile to deter aggression or 

inject chaos should conflict arise.

Conclusion

The three lines of effort developed to implement the PACAF strategy were 

prepared with the challenges of the Indo-Pacific in mind. It is unrealistic to assume 

these challenges can be overcome without acknowledgment; more importantly, we 

cannot transform these challenges into opportunities if we are not aware of them.

Currently our forces within the “first island chain” are capable of being ranged 

by adversary threats. Not only do we have to be comfortable with that fact, we 

have to be prepared to fight in a contested and degraded environment with only 

the forces that we have in theater should the situation dictate. Additionally, our 

allies and partners are within that same first island chain. The United States has 

cultivated a relationship of trust, in which nations have sided with us from cooperation to conflict. Even if it were possible to fall back, retreating to a position of 

safety would break the fundamental trust of these relationships. There is a level of 

risk associated with that mind-set. PACAF is aware of the inherent risks of this 

approach and continues efforts to buy down risk across the doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy 

(DOTMLPF-P) spectrum.

The NDS highlights the return to great-power competition and the threat to 

our national security within the Indo-Pacific region. The emerging threats, added 

to the complexity of an already challenging spatial and diverse environment, are 

creating a level of uncertainty for our future. The PACAF strategy is designed to 

capitalize on a collective framework that not only benefits the security of the regional nations where 60 percent of world’s population resides but also every na-
10 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Brown

tion that seeks to fly, sail, or operate within the Indo-Pacific region in accordance 

with international norms to support 44 percent of the world’s trade. INDOPACOM is advancing as a joint and coalition force with our allies and partners to 

compete and win. At the same time, we are reserving a seat at the international 

table for all nations to voice their concerns, increase understanding, and resolve 

differences with a goal of preserving a peaceful and prosperous region. 

General CQ Brown, Jr.

General Brown (Master of Aeronautical Science degree, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; BS civil engineering, Texas Tech University) is the commander, Pacific Air Forces; air component commander for US Indo-Pacific 

Command; and executive director, Pacific Air Combat Operations Staff, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. 

PACAF is responsible for Air Force activities spread over half the globe in a command that supports more than 

46,000 Airmen serving principally in Japan, Korea, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam.

General Brown was commissioned in 1984 as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at Texas Tech University. He has served in a variety of positions at the squadron and wing level, including an assignment to the US Air 

Force Weapons School as an F-16 instructor. His notable staff tours include aide-de-camp to the Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force; director, Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff Executive Action Group; and deputy director, 

Operations Directorate, US Central Command. He also served as a National Defense Fellow at the Institute for 

Defense Analyses.

General Brown has commanded a fighter squadron, the US Air Force Weapons School, two fighter wings, and US 

Air Forces Central Command. Prior to his current assignment, he served as the deputy commander, US Central 

Command.

The general is a command pilot with more than 2,900 flying hours, including 130 combat hours.

Notes

1. US Department of Defense, Indo-Pacific Strategy Report (Washington, DC: DOD, 2019), 

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/01/2002152311/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE

-INDO-PACIFIC-STRATEGY-REPORT-2019.PDF.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 11

FEATURE

New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

Responding to China’s New Interventionist Foreign Policies*

Maia Baker

New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have maintained 

a mutually beneficial rapport since the countries first established diplomatic relations in 1972. Access to Chinese markets has been essential to 

New Zealand’s prosperity over the last half-century, while New Zealand played a 

key role in supporting China’s economic opening to the rest of the world. Since 

Pres. Xi Jinping’s accession to power in 2012, however, China’s actions in New 

Zealand and around the world have drawn scrutiny from intelligence agencies, 

media, academicians, and politicians. Increasingly powerful, ambitious, and perhaps insecure, China now wields an array of coercive and subversive techniques to 

support its domestic and foreign policy objectives abroad. Although New Zealand’s relationship with China will only grow in importance over the coming decades, Beijing’s strategic aims and methods pose a multifaceted threat that must 

be addressed. Wellington should respond to this challenge by adopting a more 

mature and comprehensive approach to national security and the growing threat 

from China. This new approach should include three strategic lines of effort: safeguarding New Zealand’s democratic institutions, preserving its economic base, 

and supporting regional stability within the South Pacific. This challenge can best 

be understood when placed within the context of China’s strategic objectives and 

the strategic approach with which Beijing pursues them. In addressing the particular challenges that China poses to New Zealand, best practices can be drawn 

from other Western democratic states such as Australia, the United States, the 

United Kingdom, and Canada. Ultimately, the challenge posed by China illustrates why small states need grand strategy and why the lack of a national security 

strategy is a key deficiency in New Zealand government policy.

The New Zealand–China Relationship

New Zealand and the PRC fostered their early relationship on a shared desire 

to address the spread of Soviet influence in the South Pacific. Since then, however, 

the relationship has primarily centered on trade rather than security matters.1 As 

*The views and opinions expressed or implied within this article are those of the author, and do not 

necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Army, the New Zealand Defence Force, or the Government of 

New Zealand.
12 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

a former British colony, New Zealand’s economic wellbeing was heavily dependent on guaranteed access to British markets through the first half of the twentieth century. This ended with the United Kingdom’s accession to the European 

Economic Community, which London announced in 1961 and implemented in 

1973.2 New Zealand responded by diversifying its export markets and establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) with Australia and trade deals with the United 

States, Japan, South Korea, and China. New Zealand and China established diplomatic relations in 1972, and since then a series of firsts has punctuated the relationship. New Zealand was the first state to support China’s accession to the 

World Trade Organization in 1997, first to recognize China’s market economy in 

2004, and first to negotiate an FTA with China, which the two countries implemented in 2008.3

 Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully emphasized that New Zealand’s economic resilience following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis resulted from its FTA with China.4

 New Zealand’s relationship with 

China has continued to grow over the last decade. In 2013, Wellington and Beijing commenced the first tripartite development project with a Pacific Island nation.5

 In 2014, the two states announced that they would upgrade their relationship to a “comprehensive strategic partnership.”6

 In 2016, negotiations to upgrade 

the bilateral FTA commenced.7 Without a common language, culture, or set of 

political values, New Zealand’s relationship with China is thus primarily motivated by trade, which has not only fueled economic growth but also helped New 

Zealand navigate the economic setbacks of 1973 and 2008.

While Wellington’s chief interest in China is with trade, Beijing’s interests in 

New Zealand are somewhat more varied. With its many “firsts,” New Zealand 

acted as China’s advocate in the West. More recently, by joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and supporting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), 

New Zealand has furthered China’s broader economic aims in the South Pacific.8

New Zealand enjoys a disproportionate influence in international forums, as Wellington administers the foreign and defense policies of three other Pacific Island 

nations: Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. New Zealand’s support can thus 

garner four votes in international forums such as the United Nations.9 New Zealand is a claimant state in Antarctica and administers the Ross Dependency, which 

is a large area of the continent and adjoining sea. Chinese officials, perhaps erroneously, believe that the Antarctic Treaty will expire in 2048. In anticipation of a 

polar land grab, Beijing seeks to stake China’s claim in the continent, which offers 

vast natural resources, a base for tracking space-based military technologies, and 

other geostrategic advantages.10 New Zealand’s airspace has relatively little traffic, 

making it a promising testing ground for space and near-space technologies.11

Already, it appears that China has launched near-space dual-use equipment from 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 13

Chinese-owned New Zealand farmlands.12 In addition, New Zealand is a valuable exporter of dairy products to China, supplying 24 percent of China’s foreign 

milk imports and 80 percent of its butter.13 Finally, as a small and nonthreatening 

country, New Zealand serves as a sandbox environment for diplomatic and trade 

negotiations, allowing China to refine its process in a low-risk environment before engaging with larger economies.14

Although it has largely been one of mutual gain, New Zealand’s relationship 

with China is not without risk. In a number of areas, the actions and policies of 

the PRC are at odds with New Zealand’s values and interests. Beijing’s actions in 

New Zealand, the South Pacific, and China’s own “near abroad” all pose a challenge to New Zealand’s long-term interests.15 Seeking to preserve its trade benefits, Wellington has traditionally tended to accommodate the PRC’s foreign 

policy excesses. Indeed, the previous National government exercised a “no surprises” policy by which Wellington avoided public statements that China might 

view as a challenge to its core interests.16 This has changed somewhat under the 

current Labour government, which has voiced some limited criticism over China’s 

actions in the South China Sea (SCS).17 Wellington has also introduced a number of policies that limit the scope for Chinese influence in New Zealand.18 Beijing has voiced China’s dissent to these policies, and New Zealand’s opposition 

party has called on the government to repair the relationship.19 One key shortfall 

of public discourse within New Zealand is that the PRC’s actions are often taken 

in isolation, giving rise to skepticism about the veracity or relevance of various 

issues. This discussion can be better informed by situating the PRC’s actions 

within a broader framework that incorporates China’s overarching strategic objectives and Beijing’s unique strategic approach. This will allow us to better understand the challenge posed by China and formulate an appropriate response.

China’s Strategic Objectives

Temporally, China has structured its strategic objectives around two key dates: 

the centenary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2021 and the centenary 

of the founding of the PRC in 2049. The CCP adopted these “Two Centenaries” 

into its constitution in 2012, along with development benchmarks for what President Xi calls “the great dream of the Chinese nation’s rejuvenation.”20 The Two 

Centenary goals largely center on China’s domestic and social development, although they also address the nation’s economic and military power. The CCP intends for China to be a “moderately prosperous society in all respects” by 2021, 

which in effect means doubling the 2010 per capita income figures.21 By 2049, 

China is likely to have reaped the benefits of its BRI and become the largest 

economic power in terms of gross domestic product. Military reform also features 
14 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

in the Two Centenary goals, with three key benchmarks: to achieve mechanization, organizational reform, and increased informational capabilities by 2020; to 

have completed modernization by 2035; and to have “fully transformed into 

world-class forces” by 2049.22 By the second centenary, Xi envisages that “China 

has become a global leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence.”23 These goals suggest that China’s People’s Liberation Army 

(PLA) will benchmark against the United States not only in terms of military 

capability but also in terms of force projection and global reach.

Geographically, one can best visualize China’s strategic aims as a set of concentric rings, at the heart of which is the continued survival and leadership of the 

CCP. The second strategic aim is the maintenance of internal stability, which the 

CCP pursues through state propaganda, the Social Credit program, repression of 

political dissidents, internal and international travel controls, and censorship of 

media and the Internet. Third is sovereign territorial integrity, which includes 

maintaining control over outer provinces such as Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, 

as well as the reintegration of Taiwan. Chinese leadership is particularly concerned that neighboring states will exploit disunity within these provinces as a 

pretext to violate China’s territorial integrity. Through troop and naval dispositions and the development of its antiaccess and area denial system, Beijing seeks 

to defend China’s borders against foreign aggression. The fourth ring encompasses 

China’s near abroad. This includes territorial claims in the South and East China 

Seas, diversifying trade routes, and areas of dispute with India. China ultimately 

seeks to exert regional influence and supplant the United States as the stabilizing 

power within East and Southeast Asia. In the final outer ring, China’s global 

strategic aims include the development of a robust global economic infrastructure, 

access to natural resources across the globe, development of a network of friendly 

nations and regional platforms, and control over the global narrative relating to 

China’s core interests.

China’s foreign policy objectives in the South Pacific align with its global strategic aims outlined above. Beijing is extending its diplomatic reach by providing 

aid and investment to Pacific Island nations. In part, this is a continuation of the 

competitive “checkbook diplomacy” that China and Taiwan have traditionally 

carried out in the region, exchanging aid for exclusive diplomatic recognition.24

The South Pacific is also a source of important natural resources, including timber, 

minerals, fishing stocks, meat, dairy, and agricultural produce. Finally, the South 

Pacific appears likely to play a key role in China’s military development and geostrategic expansion.25 Physical infrastructure such as the Port of Darwin and a 

proposed cruise terminal in Vanuatu may in the future support the projection of 

PLA Navy vessels into the Pacific. Pacific Island nations, including New Zealand, 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 15

also offer suitable locations from which to launch and/or track space and nearspace military or dual-use technologies such as satellites, high-altitude balloons, 

and ballistic missiles.

China’s Strategic Approach

Having developed a broad understanding of China’s strategic objectives, it is 

important to understand the characteristics of Beijing’s strategic approach. A 

strategic approach can be defined as a framework or set of guiding principles that 

govern the application of ways, means, and subordinate goals in the pursuit of 

overarching strategic objectives.26 China’s strategic approach can be determined 

from official statements, foreign policies, and unofficial but apparently statesanctioned activities. Since Xi Jinping’s accession to power, China’s strategic approach has become more aspirational and aggressive, making greater use of the 

levers of national power.27 The relative policy stability of China’s one-party government means that Beijing can set long-term strategic objectives, such as the 

continuing cycle of five-year plans and Xi’s Two Centenaries. Within this context, China’s strategic approach in the current era features three main characteristics: the pursuit of competitive strategies, cooptation of private enterprise, and 

a high degree of three-dimensional integration. These characteristics, which are 

explained in more detail below, describe a strategic approach that is effective, if 

potentially self-defeating.

Beijing’s foreign influence operations indicate that China is engaged everywhere in competitive strategies. Thomas G. Mahnken explains that long-term 

competitive strategies are pursued by identifying constraints and other factors 

that will affect a competitor’s decision making and choosing actions that are designed to exploit those factors.28 Although President Xi insists that China will 

“hold high the banner of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit,”29

China’s diplomatic, trade, and informational practices are rather more competitive 

in character. Chinese officials emphasize the nation’s historical commitment to 

continuing dialogue with other states, even during times of conflict. At the same 

time, China carries out belligerent actions such as cyberattacks and intellectual 

property theft against friendly nations. These apparent inconsistencies point to a 

nonlinear or opportunistic logic underlying Beijing’s strategic approach. China is 

willing to employ competitive strategies against friendly states and trading partners, as demonstrated by Landbridge Group’s acquisition of a 99-year lease on the 

Port of Darwin in 2016.

Landbridge Group is a Chinese-owned company that has extensive links to the 

CCP and PLA. It is headquartered in Shangdong Province, whose provincial 

government has named the company’s owner one of the “top 10 individuals caring 
16 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

about the development of national defense.”30 Landbridge Group maintains an 

armed militia in Shangdong whose role is to provide logistics, emergency services, 

and combat readiness support to the PLA Navy.31 This is part of a broader effort 

within China to build closer links between business and the military—a practice 

introduced under Xi Jinping.32 Landbridge Group and other Chinese shipping 

companies have secured deepwater ports in key locations throughout the IndoPacific, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Central America. These installations 

are configured to provide support to the PLA Navy and required to do so on demand.33 Many of these ports appear to be commercially unviable but are geostrategically well positioned to support the PLA Navy’s power projection and control 

of key waterways.34 Zhang Jie, a researcher at the elite Chinese Academy of Social 

Sciences, first articulated this approach in 2015 under the label “civilian first, later 

military.”35 Understanding how Landbridge Group contributes to China’s military strategic objectives, it is useful to view the Port of Darwin through a strategic 

rather than commercial lens.

The Port of Darwin is strategically located on the northern coast of Australia 

and is a focal point for defense cooperation between Australia and the United 

States. Darwin is home to Australian Army and Air Force bases and serves as a 

forward staging base for military operations in the region. While Australia does 

not maintain a naval base in the area, Darwin functions as a center for multinational military and naval exercises, hosting up to 100 visiting Australian and foreign warships each year.36 Since Pres. Barack Obama announced America’s “Pivot 

to the Pacific,” Darwin has been at the center of American–Australian military 

relations.37 Since 2012, it has been the site of a semipermanent American military 

presence, with a contingent of US Marines basing themselves in the town for six 

months of every year. Thus, Darwin serves as the southern flank of America’s 

military presence in the South Pacific. When the sale to Landbridge Group was 

announced, American officials expressed concern that Australia did not consult 

the United States ahead of time.38 This purchase fits one of the categories of 

competitive strategy outlined by Bradford A. Lee, that of “attacking the enemy’s 

strategy.”39 Through the Port of Darwin purchase, China has challenged America’s 

force posture in the South Pacific, generated tension within the American–Australian military partnership, and gained a strategic foothold from which Landbridge Group may later support PLA Naval operations.

The Port of Darwin purchase also fits a second category of Lee’s competitive 

strategies, that of “attacking the adversary’s political system.”40 The sale was enabled by bureaucratic shortfalls, a political rift between state and federal governments, and lower scrutiny over sales to private companies rather than state-owned 

enterprises. For a number of years, the Northern Territory state government had 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 17

unsuccessfully lobbied Australia’s federal government for funds to upgrade the 

port, believing the capital investment would provide the region with much-needed 

economic stimulus.41 In 2015, the state government put the port up for sale in 

what is now widely considered as an ill-conceived cash grab. The sale raised numerous procedural concerns, including a lack of transparency by the state government, the Foreign Investment Review Board’s failure to investigate the sale, and 

an only cursory review by mid-level bureaucrats within the Australian Defence 

Force.42 Senior Australian officials, including the federal treasurer and minister of 

defence, were informed of the sale only hours before it was announced.43 The sale 

highlighted a number of bureaucratic shortfalls, which the Australian government has since moved to fix. However, it also fits a general pattern by which 

Beijing exploits weaknesses within political systems to pursue its goals. Elsewhere, 

China has cultivated weak or corrupt political leaders, engaged in “debt-trap diplomacy” in capital-starved developing states, and gained undue influence over 

regional platforms through vulnerable member states.44

Landbridge Group’s purchase of the Port of Darwin, along with similar acquisitions by other Chinese shipping companies, is one method by which Beijing 

employs private corporations to pursue China’s strategic objectives. Another example of this is the employment of private fishing boats in the South and East 

China Seas, which the PRC has armed and mobilized to assert China’s territorial 

claims in the region.45 This practice can be incorporated into Edward Luttwak’s 

two-dimensional strategic framework, by which strategy is conceptualized along 

vertical and horizontal dimensions.46 Horizontal integration is the harmonious 

application of the levers of national power through a whole-of-government effort. 

China can add corporate power, or the cooptation of private enterprise, to its diplomatic, military, informational, and economic levers of national power. China 

employs corporate power within other states or disputed areas as an asymmetric 

means to gain access, apply political leverage, or undermine defenses. Efforts such 

as these differentiate China from other states, which may seek to develop key industries or outsource public functions to private contractors but do not wield 

private corporations as a lever of national power. Vertical integration, or nesting, is 

the alignment of objectives throughout the strategic hierarchy. This term was initially developed to describe military strategy, but it translates readily across all 

levers of national power. An example of effective vertical integration in the diplomatic domain is China’s pursuit of PRC enterprise–to–foreign enterprise, partyto-party, and person-to-person relationships.47

China’s whole-of-government foreign policy efforts fall under three broad categories: hard power, soft power, and sharp power. We can respectively describe 

these three approaches as coercive, persuasive, and subversive in nature. Hard 
18 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

power is the use of tangible military and economic capabilities to pursue goals 

through the use or threatened use of force. Hard power efforts may include military occupation, diplomatic isolation, and economic sanctions. Soft power is persuasive in nature and can range across all levers of national power. China seeks to 

extend soft power through legitimate activities such as peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and trade partnerships. While hard and soft power are well understood, 

the term sharp power was coined to describe a third approach, which is inherently 

subversive.48 It is used to undermine state institutions, politicians, academicians, 

and business leaders. As an example, Australian Member of Parliament (MP) 

Sam Dastyari was forced to resign in 2017 when it was revealed that Chinese 

corporations had paid money toward his travel expenses, legal bills, and other 

debts. Before he was outed, Dastyari had publically supported China’s territorial 

claims in the SCS, contrary to his party’s policy stance, and was implicated in a 

countersurveillance scandal involving a Chinese political donor.49 In this case, 

Beijing employed sharp power techniques through China’s corporate lever of national power to corrupt an Australian official and employ him as a mouthpiece for 

its own political messaging.

Beijing has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to apply deeper (i.e., more 

coercive) policies in response to perceived threats to China’s core interests. After 

the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Chinese political dissident Liu 

Xiaobo, China immediately imposed a trade embargo on Norwegian salmon. The 

embargo remained in place for six years, costing Norway USD 1 billion in lost 

exports.50 After relations were normalized in 2016, China chided the Norwegian 

government for undermining the two countries’ “bilateral mutual trust.”51 This 

incident reveals much about China’s strategic approach. While the Norwegian 

parliament appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the latter functions as an 

independent entity whose decisions do not reflect government policy.52 Nevertheless, China retaliated against Norwegian commerce to influence the Norwegian 

government and appears to have done so effectively. In imposing the trade embargo, China subordinated trade to internal stability, in keeping with the order of 

its strategic priorities. Given the enormity of the Chinese market, China’s willingness to impose coercive economic measures is an effective deterrent. Other states 

are thus compelled to take note of Norway’s misfortune and practice selfcensorship over matters pertaining to China’s core interests.

Building on Luttwak’s two-dimensional strategic framework, we may visualize 

China’s application of soft power, sharp power, and hard power methods of influence as points along a third dimension or axis. Whereas the strategic hierarchy 

forms the vertical y axis, and the levers of national power form the horizontal or x 

axis, methods of influence form the depth or z axis (fig. 1). Progression along the 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 19

z axis indicates the increasingly aggressive employment of the levers of national 

power from soft, to sharp, to hard power methods. As mentioned earlier, the y axis

can also be broadened from Luttwak’s military description to encompass a wholeof-government approach. Within the alternative framework offered here, the 

strategic hierarchy is capped with policy and national grand strategy. Below this 

are efforts to shape the strategic environment at the multinational level, for example through international law, regional platforms, or multinational organizations. Next are state-level interactions, then department-to-department (or 

business-to-business) interactions. The lowest level encompasses interpersonal 

and transactional engagements. China’s strategic approach is inherently threedimensional, in that it is characterized by the harmonious integration of efforts 

along the x, y, and z axes.

Figure 1. Representation of a three-dimensional strategic framework

The acquisition of the Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka provides an example of 

how China’s strategic approach is used to pursue its geostrategic aims under Xi’s 

Two Centenaries. The construction of the port, which was completed in 2010, was 

a Chinese proposition, funded by a USD 2 billion Chinese development loan. The 

port was located in the home province of then Sri Lankan president Mahinda 

Rajapaksa, who pushed the project ahead, along with a number of Chinese-funded 

vanity projects, despite opposition from community groups.53 Located in a remote 

area, the commercial port failed to turn a profit. Colombo granted a 99-year lease 

on the port to the state-owned China Merchants Group to avoid defaulting on 

Sri Lanka’s loan repayments. Although China has not declared any ambitions to 

establish a permanent military presence at the Hambantota Port, it is apparent 

that the Hambantota Port offers geostrategic rather than commercial value, given 

its location relative to India, the Indian Ocean, and the Strait of Malacca.54 In-
20 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

deed, shortly after the Hambantota Port acquisition, Chinese warships began 

making port calls at the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo. India has recognized this 

threat and made a USD 300 million bid to purchase a 40-year lease on the equally 

unprofitable Hambantota airport to preclude China from developing the port 

into a naval base.55 In this example, we see China employ sharp power in a friendly 

state by using a debt-trap investment technique to gain control of dual-use infrastructure. China pursued this goal through engagement at the state, corporate, 

and person-to-person levels, leveraging a key weakness within Sri Lanka’s political system, which was the corruptibility of President Rajapaksa. All this contributed to an outcome that will support China’s military strategic aims for 2049.

New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

Successive New Zealand governments have insisted that although the two 

countries have different political values, Wellington and Beijing can work around 

these differences to cooperate on areas of mutual interest. In fact, anxious to preserve the economic benefits of free trade, Wellington has unwisely ignored differences over such fundamental matters as human rights, freedom of navigation, foreign influence operations, and debt-trap diplomacy. Beijing’s strategic objectives 

and the sharp power techniques inherent in China’s strategic approach challenge 

New Zealand’s interests in a number of ways. First, Chinese influence operations 

threaten to erode New Zealand’s democratic institutions. Second, China may come 

to threaten New Zealand’s economic base through market manipulation, gaining 

undue influence over key infrastructure or employing trade retaliation for real or 

perceived challenges to China’s strategic interests. Finally, China’s policies in the 

South Pacific may contribute to regional instability and increasing polarity, while 

setting the conditions for the PLA Navy to project maritime power into the region. 

New Zealand should adopt a comprehensive cross-government approach to address vulnerabilities that are being exploited by Chinese efforts. Wellington should 

recognize and respond in a proportional manner to the PRC’s employment of a 

range of sharp power techniques. This requires a multilevel approach consisting of 

three strategic lines of effort: safeguarding New Zealand’s democratic institutions, 

preserving its economic base, and promoting stability within the South Pacific region. Looking further ahead, it is apparent that New Zealand will better position 

itself to identify, articulate, and respond to challenges such as those posed by China 

by adopting and publishing a national security strategy.
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 21

Safeguarding New Zealand’s Democratic Institutions

China’s influence operations in New Zealand are not as overt or coercive as 

they have been in states such as Norway and Sri Lanka; however, they give cause 

for concern. These are documented by Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University and exhibit common features with influence operations elsewhere.56 In outline, these include state influence over Chinese expatriate communities, Chineselanguage media, tertiary academic institutions, and the New Zealand political 

system. The CCP established United Front organizations abroad to influence 

foreign governments and ethnic Chinese expatriate communities. United Front 

efforts have increased markedly since 2012 and play a key role in presenting the 

official Chinese narrative abroad.57 By playing a coordinating function within 

New Zealand, Brady argues that the United Front extends CCP influence over 

Chinese community groups, suppresses anti-CCP Chinese groups, and mobilizes 

political support for pro-Chinese issues.58 The role that the United Front plays in 

informing and coordinating Chinese communities, in conjunction with Xi Jinping’s Social Credit system, offers significant potential for Chinese state influence 

within New Zealand. CCP-backed Chinese-language media in New Zealand has 

also increased significantly in step with United Front actions.59

New Zealand’s political system features a number of weaknesses that the PRC 

may exploit to exert undue influence. As noted above, United Front organizations 

play a key role in coordinating political support among Chinese expatriate communities. Access to the Chinese market brings enormous trade benefits, which 

means that business interests and Chinese interests can often be aligned. Government self-censorship over China’s military actions in the SCS may thus be a result 

of political prudence, business pressure, Chinese pressure, or all the above. Jian 

Yang, a Chinese–New Zealander serving as an MP, failed to disclose to the public 

that he is a member of the CCP or that he studied and served with Chinese 

military intelligence for 15 years before emigrating.60 Such are New Zealand’s 

democratic protections that although he has been removed from several boards 

and committees, he continues to serve as an MP. Chinese interest groups and 

businesses, backed by the CCP, make significant political donations and offer directorships to retired politicians.61 New Zealand’s campaign finance laws allow 

for anonymous donations from both domestic and foreign sources. During the 

last six years, more than 80 percent of the donations to New Zealand’s two largest 

political parties were from anonymous sources.62

Another arm of China’s foreign influence apparatus is the network of Confucius Institutes, which have established partnerships with hundreds of universities 

around the world. Confucius Institutes have been established at New Zealand 
22 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

universities in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.63 These organizations do 

not teach for-credit courses; rather their role is to teach Chinese language, culture, 

and history to tertiary students and the wider community. While these appear to 

be benign goals, commentators have raised concerns about the potential for Confucius Institutes to exert undue influence over academics or student bodies, noting 

that host universities receive funding from Beijing.64 Liu Yunshan, China’s Minister of Propaganda in 2010, emphasized the contribution that these organizations make to China’s global propaganda efforts.65 Some universities that host 

Confucius Institutes have been accused of self-censorship over issues that are 

sensitive to the CCP.66 They present a CCP-approved version of Chinese history 

and culture, including core issues such as human rights, the suppression of Uighur 

populations, and sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. At a time when both the 

public and private sectors recognize a need to grow public awareness about Chinese culture, Confucius Institutes are performing a function that universities are 

not resourced to fulfill, albeit in a way that is intended to garner support for the 

CCP’s party line.

China also targets tertiary institutions by sending PLA scientists and doctoral 

students to study areas of science and technology that have military or dual-use 

applications. This practice is described in China as “picking flowers in foreign 

lands to make honey in China.”67 These students are often directed to conceal 

their military background by providing false or misleading information on their 

visa applications. China has established close relationships with hundreds of universities based on collaborative research and Chinese funding. While New Zealand is not one of the top destinations for this, the issue came to light in 2018 

when a Chinese doctoral student at the Auckland University of Technology was 

investigated for conducting research into 5G wireless technology that has military 

applications.68 Several of New Zealand’s universities have established partnerships with Chinese companies that are understood to have links with the PLA. 

New Zealand does have legislation in place that bans universities from developing 

technology with a military end use unless authorization is gained from the secretary of foreign affairs and trade.69 However, collaborative research and technology 

transfer may play a partial, unobvious role in China’s military modernization.

Australia, the United States, and Canada have taken action to prevent foreign 

influence over their democratic institutions. Australia instituted sweeping legislation in 2018 to protect against foreign influence operations.70 While the legislation was drafted in response to concerns raised by Australian intelligence about 

Chinese actions in particular, the law addresses foreign rather than Chinese interference. The United States Congress introduced similar legislation in June 2018, 

with some notable differences. The Countering the Chinese Government and 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 23

Communist Party’s Political Influence Operations Act recognizes China’s use of 

sharp power and requires the US government to implement a number of measures 

to curtail Chinese influence operations.71 Unlike Australia, the American legislation targets China directly. However, the bill spells out a clear distinction between 

Chinese nationals and the state, and includes provisions to protect Chinese nationals in America from intimidation and surveillance by the Chinese government. Canada introduced legislation in 2018 to protect against foreign interference in national elections.72 This followed a report released by Canada’s 

Communications Security Establishment, which found that the 2015 federal 

election had been targeted by low-level cyberattacks.73 The legislation bans foreign entities from spending money to influence Canadian elections. Political advertisements are required to carry identifying taglines, and media platforms, including social media, are prohibited from accepting election advertisements from 

foreign entities.74

Following these examples, New Zealand should implement a package of legislative reforms to protect against foreign political interference. This should include 

a new ministerial portfolio responsible for coordinating protective measures across 

a range of government departments and state-sector functions, including defense, 

foreign affairs and trade, customs and police, primary industries, education, internal affairs, and the intelligence community. Political donations from foreign and 

anonymous sources should be banned. Persons or organizations that engage in 

political lobbying on behalf of a foreign state should be required to register as 

foreign agents. The use of subversion or coercion to influence the political process 

should be proscribed under New Zealand’s espionage legislation. Confucius Institutes and other informational apparatus that represent foreign governments 

should also be required to register as foreign agents, and the government should 

give consideration to removing them from publicly funded facilities such as university campuses. Media outlets, business forums, and community groups such as 

United Front organizations should likewise be required to declare any links to 

foreign governments and register as foreign agents if applicable. New Zealand 

should also take active measures to protect expatriate populations and foreign 

tertiary students from surveillance, influence, and coercion by their home states.75

Finally, New Zealand should review its tertiary funding model, which has led 

underresourced universities to seek corporate partnerships and foreign funding to 

bolster their finances.

Preserving New Zealand’s Economic Base

New Zealand continues to support China’s economic programs through its 

support to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRI. This is a 
24 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

logical continuation of New Zealand’s policy of pursuing closer economic ties 

with China and promoting economic development throughout the Asia-Pacific 

region. Trade between the two countries tripled during the ten years following the 

implementation of the 2008 FTA. China is now New Zealand’s largest export 

market and trading partner, and New Zealand achieved a NZ$3.6 billion surplus 

in its trade with China for 2017.76 While New Zealand should continue to benefit from its close economic ties with China, the government should also recognize the risks inherent in the trade relationship. In 2014, dairy prices in New 

Zealand fell by 60 percent as a result of China stockpiling milk powder.77 A number of farms were driven out of business, resulting in an increase in rural land sales 

and attendant decrease in property prices. In the same year, Chinese investments 

in farmland increased markedly, making Chinese investors the largest foreign 

buyers of New Zealand real estate in 2014.78 While it has not been established 

that China deliberately manipulated New Zealand’s property market, this shows 

the extent to which New Zealand’s economy is in thrall to Chinese market forces. 

This lends gravity to the threat posed by the PRC’s use of corporate power and 

trade retaliation in pursuit of its national strategic objectives.

Among other states, the United Kingdom has begun to apply closer scrutiny to 

foreign investments, following concerns over China’s penetration into British infrastructure. The United Kingdom’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has proposed legislation to limit foreign investment in critical infrastructure.79 The National Security and Infrastructure Investment Review was 

published in October 2017, partly in response to concerns about a Chinese company’s ownership of a 30 percent stake in the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.80

While it emphasizes the United Kingdom’s commitment to open markets and the 

importance of foreign investment, the report states that “we need to be alert to the 

risk that having ownership or control of critical businesses or infrastructure could 

provide opportunities to undertake espionage, sabotage, or exert inappropriate 

leverage.”81 The review proposes a range of short and long-term national security 

reforms. The proposed short-term legislation gives the government greater scope 

to examine and intervene in corporate mergers that involve military, dual-use, and 

high-technology sectors. Proposed long-term reforms would give the government 

greater scrutiny over transactions and foreign investment across a broader range 

of transactions that may potentially affect national security, or which fall within a 

set of essential economic functions.

Chinese investment and the BRI offer immense opportunities to develop new 

infrastructure and open up new trade links across Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific. 

However, some states have come to reject Chinese investment deals for a number 

of reasons. China’s state communications company, Huawei, has been denied ac-
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 25

cess to 5G networks in a number of states, including New Zealand, due to concerns about the integrity of its systems.82 Larger infrastructure projects have cost 

more than expected, while China’s practice of exporting labor rather than employing local contractors has limited the benefits to host nations.83 Other investments such as ports and airports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Australia have proved 

to be unprofitable. This has given rise to suspicions that these projects have been 

selected for their geostrategic, rather than commercial value.84 Finally, commentators have leveled allegations that China has engaged in “debt-trap diplomacy” by 

offering huge investment loans to developing countries that are unable to meet 

their repayments.85 In the last two years, a number of states including Malaysia, 

Pakistan, Nepal, and Sierra Leone have cancelled Chinese infrastructure projects 

linked to the BRI citing concerns over national debt, especially in the wake of 

China’s takeover of the Hambantota Port.86

China has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to impose diplomatic and 

economic costs on states that challenge its core interests or its employment of 

competitive strategies. As noted above, in 2018 the New Zealand government 

blocked a bid by Huawei to develop the national 5G network, citing security 

concerns raised by the Government Communications Security Bureau.87 While 

the government did not specify the nature of its security concerns, the PRC recently adopted legislation that requires telecommunications companies to support 

Chinese military intelligence on demand.88 This is another application of Chinese 

corporate power and contributes to Xi Jinping’s goal to achieve greater militarycivilian integration. The PRC retaliated against the Huawei ban by targeting the 

New Zealand tourism industry. Tourism is New Zealand’s largest export earner, 

while China is its second-largest international tourist market source after Australia.89 The PRC delayed the announcement of the China-New Zealand Year of 

Tourism, which was to be launched in Wellington in February. CCP-backed media ran articles to dissuade Chinese citizens from traveling to New Zealand, while 

the Chinese Consulate issued a travel advisory warning for New Zealand. This is 

a tactic that China has also recently employed against Canada following the arrest 

of Huawei’s chief financial officer.90 Hong Kong Airlines have now announced 

that they will withdraw services from New Zealand, although it is not clear 

whether this was influenced by the Huawei ban, or was purely a commercial decision.91 In February 2019, an Air New Zealand flight was denied a landing permit and turned back while en-route to Shanghai because the flight documentation included a reference to Taiwan.92

New Zealand’s economic base and infrastructure should be protected against 

unfair trade practices, opportunism, takeover of critical infrastructure, and trade 

retaliation. These protections should include broader governmental powers to 
26 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

monitor and intervene in foreign investment or corporate mergers with foreign 

companies. Industries that would warrant government oversight and intervention 

include those related to military, dual-use, and high-technology research and applications. This would also include critical infrastructure such as power-generation 

plants, utilities, ports and airports, railways, and communications infrastructure. 

Such transactions should be reviewed to determine the potential for espionage, 

sabotage, and inappropriate leverage. In doing so, it is important to remember that 

China has a long strategic planning horizon, grand aspirations for 2049, a growing 

stake in the South Pacific and Antarctica, and a policy of wielding corporate power 

in support of national strategic objectives. Chinese trade retaliation can be very 

effective in New Zealand, where it can be represented as a natural response to inept 

messaging and policy making by the government. The government can mitigate 

the impact of Chinese trade retaliation by taking deliberate steps such as promoting transparency and public discourse, further diversifying New Zealand’s trading 

partners, and reducing the reliance on primary industries such as agriculture by 

providing greater incentives to invest in high-end goods and services.

 Promoting Stability within the South Pacific Region

New Zealand works closely with Australia to promote stability within the 

South Pacific region through diplomatic engagement, economic aid, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, and peacekeeping operations. This is a pragmatic undertaking and a moral obligation on the two wealthiest states in the region. Regional 

instability can create conditions for increased migration, transnational crime, and 

humanitarian crises. China’s strategic aims and its employment of competitive 

strategies in the South Pacific can frustrate the efforts of Australia and New Zealand. Based on its stance of noninterference in sovereign matters, Beijing is willing to work with any nation, as long as they do not criticize China’s policies and 

actions relating to its core strategic interests. Australia and New Zealand have 

voiced concerns that China’s “no strings attached” approach to engagement can 

exacerbate regional instability by supporting illegitimate regimes and fueling corrupt practices.93 Following a military coup in Fiji in 2006, the Pacific Island Forum applied diplomatic pressure to isolate the new regime and encourage a peaceful transition to legitimate government. China undermined these efforts, not only 

willingly engaging with the military junta but also sponsoring an alternative regional platform that included Fiji and seven other Pacific Island nations but not 

Australia and New Zealand.94

More recently, the PRC has increased its efforts to build influence in the South 

Pacific through infrastructure development loans. Pacific Island leaders, who are 

put off by New Zealand’s and Australia’s insistence on the promotion of democ-
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 27

racy, governance, and individual rights, increasingly see China as the preferred 

investment partner.95 Beijing’s investment in the South Pacific increased sharply 

over the last decade, and China is now the region’s second-largest donor after 

Australia. However, Chinese development funds typically come in the form of 

loans rather than grants. According to the International Monetary Fund and 

Asian Development Bank, six Pacific Island states are at high risk of debt distress, 

with another four countries rated at a moderate risk.96 Chinese investment in the 

region is thus a significant potential driver of instability, as isolated island nations 

take on significant levels of national debt that they are unlikely to be able to repay. 

A senior Australian politician has spoken out against China’s infrastructure development projects in the Pacific, describing them as “useless buildings,” “roads to 

nowhere,” and “white elephants.”97 China’s close relationship with Papua New 

Guinea (PNG) was on ostentatious display during the Asia-Pacific Economic 

Community (APEC) forum at Port Moresby in 2018.98 President Xi has incorrectly labeled China as PNG’s largest development partner, while Chinese aid and 

development loans dovetail with China’s exploitation of PNG’s natural resources. 

China accounts for the majority of PNG’s timber exports, both legal and illegal, 

which has driven unsustainable logging practices and deforestation.99

China’s relationship with Vanuatu provides an example of how the PRC is 

pursuing its strategic objectives in the South Pacific. Vanuatu, which recognizes 

the PRC, was also the first state to support China’s territorial claims in the SCS.100

Vanuatu is rated as having a moderate risk of debt distress and has accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in Chinese development loans in recent years.101 The 

island nation has a population of 270,000 and foreign debt worth USD 440 million, nearly half of which is owed to China.102 Chinese development projects in 

Vanuatu have included government buildings, a convention center, a major sports 

stadium, an education facility, and an official residence for the Vanuatu president. 

China has provided military aid to the island nation, such as the donation of 14 

military vehicles in 2017.103 Beijing also funded the development of Vanuatu’s 

Luganville wharf, which is now the largest in the South Pacific and rated to accept 

cruise liners.104 The wharf ’s geostrategic location, large investment, low profitability, and potential military application all lend the project a striking resemblance to the Hambantota Port acquisition in Sri Lanka. Australian intelligence 

services announced that Chinese and Vanuatu officials have discussed the development of a PLA military base in Vanuatu, although both states deny this claim.105

In Vanuatu, as it did in Sri Lanka, China appears to be employing debt-trap diplomacy and vanity projects to pursue its geostrategic ambitions.

New Zealand has taken some steps to play a leadership role in the South Pacific. In 2018, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade unveiled its Pacific Reset 
28 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

strategy, which seeks to reestablish New Zealand’s leadership position in the Pacific through an increased investment in foreign aid and diplomatic efforts.106

Without naming China specifically, the minister acknowledges that external 

stakeholders with “deeper pockets than us” are building influence over Pacific Island states.107 New Zealand maintains defense ties with a number of Pacific Island 

states, with whom it has undertaken peacekeeping operations, humanitarian aid 

and disaster relief operations, and security cooperation. New Zealand also accepts 

military officers from Pacific Island states on military career courses through its 

Mutual Assistance Program. New Zealand’s efforts have been coordinated with 

Australia, which has unveiled a plan that involves greater diplomatic engagement, 

military support, aid, and investment loans.108 More can be done to challenge 

China’s employment of competitive strategies and sharp power techniques in the 

South Pacific. While New Zealand welcomes greater Chinese engagement in the 

region, Wellington has been reluctant to speak out against Chinese actions that 

are likely to drive instability, increase debt to unsustainable levels, and undermine 

sovereignty or effective governance.

(Photo courtesy of the New Zealand Defence Force)

Figure 2. International relationships. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and its 

international partners conduct a military assault against a rebel stronghold on the Rainbow Ski-field near St. Arnaud in the Tasman district during Exercise Southern Katipo. This 

exercise is a combined, joint, international training field exercise focused on developing, exercising, and evaluating the NZDF’s independent capabilities and ability to project 

forces anywhere in the Southwest Pacific. The event provides the opportunity to ensure 

continual preparedness to operate independently or with the nation’s coalition partners. 

Military personnel from Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Brunei, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste 

played an active part in the 2017 exercise alongside New Zealand, with small contingents 

from Australia, Canada, the United States, France, and Britain also taking part.
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 29

New Zealand should coordinate its messaging with Australia to challenge 

China’s influence in the South Pacific. Wellington and Canberra provide the Pacific Island nations with alternatives to Chinese investment and military engagement, but these efforts are largely reactive in nature and operate at a disadvantage.109 Neither country has the resources to out-compete China on its own terms, 

while the imperative to promote effective governance and sustainable growth 

saddles the two countries with constraints not felt by the PRC. This makes China 

the preferred investment partner for a growing body of Pacific Island nations. 

Deterred perhaps by fear of Chinese trade retaliation, both governments have 

been silent about the reasons for their renewed focus on the South Pacific.110 This 

reticence benefits China more than it does New Zealand and Australia, allowing 

the PRC to shape the regional narrative. By contrast, both states have been willing 

to voice their concerns about China’s clear violations of international law in the 

SCS.111 This has occurred through official policy statements as well as a relatively 

muted joint statement issued by the two prime ministers.112 Countering China’s 

narrative is the crucial missing component of New Zealand’s Pacific Reset and 

Australia’s “Step Up to the Pacific” campaigns. Wellington’s reluctance to bear the 

economic costs of Chinese trade retaliation is understandable. However, the government can help shape the regional narrative through public discourse, issuing 

joint statements with Australia, and supporting statements in multinational platforms such as the Pacific Islands Forum, Association of South East Asian Nations, and the United Nations.

Toward a National Security Strategy

The challenges posed by China bring to light a key deficiency in New Zealand’s 

governing process: the lack of a national grand strategy. While the common usage 

of the term has evolved over time,113 national grand strategy may be defined as a 

process by which states interpret the strategic environment, articulate national 

policy objectives, and employ the levers of national power to achieve them. Alan 

Stolberg examines the process by which states develop and articulate grand 

strategy through national security strategy documents.114 Stolberg’s survey focuses on medium and great powers, including Australia, Brazil, South Africa, the 

United Kingdom, and the United States. These states each employ processes to 

formulate and articulate grand strategy with varying degrees of comprehension. 

Strategy documents produced by incumbent or emerging superpowers, such as 

the United States and China, can have far-reaching effects not only on the internal processes of government but also on the ways in which allies, partners, and 

competitors conceptualize the global order.
30 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

The utility of national grand strategy for small states is less well understood but 

seemingly significant. Since the close of the Second World War, small states have 

negotiated the challenges presented by the changing international system with 

varying degrees of success. Many of these were forced to bandwagon with, or were 

even subsumed by, aggressive regional powers, while others were more successful. 

Singapore, Finland, and Israel each maintained their sovereignty, grew in material 

wealth, and gained a degree of regional influence, despite the persistent looming 

threat posed by ambivalent neighboring powers, regional hegemons, or hostile 

coalitions.115 All three of these small states pursued pragmatic diplomatic arrangements with regional powers, while preserving their independence and maintaining important ties with the West. They complemented these diplomatic efforts 

by cultivating and deploying their cultural (informational), economic, and military 

sources of national power. These examples highlight the value of a deliberate and 

strategic approach to statecraft. By producing a national security strategy document, New Zealand can institutionalize a process for formulating and enacting 

national grand strategy. This would bolster Wellington’s ability to respond in a 

proactive and comprehensive fashion to the challenges inherent in China’s new 

interventionist foreign policies.

Although individual ministries and departments periodically release strategic 

white papers, New Zealand does not produce and publish a national security 

strategy document. National security policy is developed within the Department 

of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, although this is not released to the public and 

appears to be a reactive process of identifying and mitigating specific threats.116

Stolberg identifies three primary reasons why a national security strategy document plays a valuable role in the national pursuit of foreign policy objectives: resourcing, coordination, and communication.117 Resourcing ensures that strategic 

aims are prioritized and funded accordingly. Coordination ensures that a wholeof-government approach is adopted, with an appropriate degree of vertical and 

horizontal integration. Communication is essential for government departments 

and the public to understand the government’s national aspirations, the challenges it perceives, and the approach it will take to overcome these challenges. 

This aspect of national strategy is sorely lacking in New Zealand, as successive 

governments have been reluctant to articulate the challenges a resurgent China 

poses to sovereignty, stability, and prosperity. For example, without a national security strategy document, the limited actions taken by the current government, 

and China’s disproportionate response, were devoid of context and consequently 

prone to become mischaracterized in public discourse.118

Based on a reading of bipartisan government policies over the last two decades, 

Carol Abraham argues that New Zealand pursues the “twin outcomes of a high 
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 31

standard of living in a secure, globally interdependent economy and an international role as a trusted partner and interlocutor.”119 This description provides a 

starting point from which overarching policy objectives might be determined. 

Like China, New Zealand should formulate a strategic approach that best fits its 

values, interests, and geostrategic situation. New Zealand’s small size, liberal 

democratic system of government, and heavy reliance on international trade all 

have a significant influence on how Wellington pursues the nation’s strategic objectives. As a small state, New Zealand benefits from global institutions and the 

international rule of law. These serve to regulate the actions of larger powers and 

thus protect New Zealand’s sovereignty and interests abroad.

New Zealand has the potential to play more of a leadership role within the 

international community. As a wealthy and stable democracy, New Zealand has 

the resources and mandate to make a positive contribution to global peace and 

stability and has done so continually for several decades now. Additionally, as a 

relatively nonaligned state, New Zealand can build on its reputation for pursuing 

an independent and values-driven foreign policy. As the global system enters another era of great-power competition, New Zealand can play a role in preserving 

the sovereignty and independence of Pacific Island nations, while serving as an 

example for other small states around the world. Mahnken argues that “small 

states are able to impose diplomatic and political costs upon their adversaries . . . 

by bringing together like-minded states to oppose coercion. More importantly, 

they will need to undertake methods to mitigate the costs that others can impose 

upon them.”120 New Zealand’s ability to rally other small states around the rulesbased international order and resist the growing systemic pressure to bandwagon 

with or balance against aggressive superpowers may become a significant source 

of national power.

Conclusion

Although New Zealand has enjoyed substantial benefits from its close economic ties with China, the relationship is not without risk. China’s multifaceted 

interventionist actions are challenging the rules-based international order upon 

which New Zealand relies for its security, prosperity, and independence. Beijing’s 

strategic approach, which is characterized by competition, three-dimensional integration, and the cooptation of private enterprise, has become increasingly aggressive since the accession of Xi Jinping. This poses a number of challenges that 

successive New Zealand governments have been reluctant to address. China’s use 

of sharp power threatens to erode New Zealand’s democratic institutions. Beijing’s use of corporate power and its willingness to employ trade retaliation pose a 

threat to New Zealand’s prosperity and independence. Within the South Pacific, 
32 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

Notes

1. Anne-Marie Brady, “China 2.0 and the Challenge It Poses to New Zealand,” Noted, 8 

November, 2018, https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/anne-marie-brady-xi-jinping-china

-challenge-to-nz/.

2. John Singleton and Paul L. Robertson, “Britain, Butter, and European Integration, 1957–

1964,” Economic History Review 50, no. 2 (May 1997): 327–47.

3. Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, New Zealand, “Our Relationship with China,” 19 

January 2019, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/north-asia/china/.

4. Anne-Marie Brady, “Magic Weapons: China’s Political Influence Activities under Xi Jinping” (policy paper, Wilson Center, 18 September 2017), 14, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites

/default/files/magic_weapons.pdf.

5. “Water Aid Project in Cook Islands a World First for West and Chinese Benefactors,” ABC 

News (Australia), 8 October 2013, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/an-cook-island

-water-project/5004264.

6. John Key, “Joint Statement between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China on 

the Establishment of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” (press release, 21 November 2014), 

China’s employment of competitive strategies in pursuit of influence, resources, 

and military access are likely to exacerbate the drivers of regional instability. 

Meanwhile, government self-censorship gives China freedom to maneuver and 

allows Beijing to control the regional narrative. Wellington should adopt a comprehensive, cross-government defense of New Zealand’s sovereignty and values 

against the threat posed by China’s increasingly aggressive and interventionist 

foreign policies. This new approach should bring together multiple elements of 

statecraft to protect New Zealand’s democratic institutions, preserve its economic 

base, and support regional stability. New Zealand is not alone in facing up to this 

challenge, and a number of best practices can be drawn from other Western democracies such as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. 

This challenge demonstrates why small states need grand strategy. By formulating 

a national security strategy, New Zealand can build public awareness of the challenges it faces, articulate its goals, understand the character of its strategic approach, and make better use of its levers of national power. 

Major Maia Baker

Major Baker is a doctoral student and serving member of the New Zealand Army. He has served on operational 

deployments to Afghanistan, the Sinai, and Iraq and is a distinguished graduate of the US Marine Corps Command 

and Staff College. He earned a masters of military studies from Marine Corps University (2019), master of management from Massey University (2016), and bachelor of arts with honors (first class) in international relations from 

Victoria University of Wellington (2003). In his doctoral studies, Major Baker uses process tracing to explore how 

small states employ the elements of national grand strategy to protect and advance their interests within a changing 

global or regional system.
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 33

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/joint-statement-between-new-zealand-and-people

%E2%80%99s-republic-china-establishment-comprehensive.

7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, New Zealand, “Our Relationship with China.”

8. “Belt and Road Initiative – A Strategic Pathway,” New Zealand China Council, 26 April 

2019, https://nzchinacouncil.org.nz/beltandroad/; and Bill English, “New Zealand formally joins 

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank” (press release, 8 December 2015), https://www.beehive

.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-formally-joins-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank.

9. Brady, “Magic Weapon,” 12.

10. Anne-Marie Brady, “China’s Expanding Antarctic Interests: Implications for New Zealand,” Small States and the New Security Environment, 3 June 2017, https://www.canterbury.ac.nz

/media/documents/research/China’s-expanding-Antarctic-interests.pdf.

11. For more information on New Zealand’s fledgling space industry, see the following article: 

Sally Blundell, “The Extraordinary Story of How New Zealand Entered the Space Race,” The Listener, 9 December 2018, https://www.noted.co.nz/money/business/rocket-lab-how-new-zealand

-entered-space-race/.

12. Brady, “Magic Weapon,” 12.

13. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, China and the Age of Strategic Rivalry: Highlights 

from an Academic Outreach Workshop (Ottawa, Canada: CSIS, May 2018), 78, https://www.canada

.ca/content/dam/csis-scrs/documents/publications/CSIS-Academic-Outreach-China-report

-May-2018-en.pdf.

14. Rob Schmitz, “Australia and New Zealand Are Ground Zero for Chinese Influence,” 

NPR, 2 October 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand

-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence.

15. The term near abroad was initially coined in Russian to refer to former Soviet states that 

gained independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The term implies that these states 

fall within Russia’s sphere of influence and has been used by Russian leaders to assert a right to 

exert influence over them. See for example: Bernard Gwertzman, “Moscow Indicates It Won’t Be 

Ignored in the ‘Near Abroad,’” Council on Foreign Relations, 12 February 2009, https://www.cfr

.org/interview/moscow-indicates-it-wont-be-ignored-near-abroad.

16. Joshua Kurlantzick, “Australia, New Zealand Face China’s Influence,” Council on Foreign Relations, 13 December 2017, https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/australia-new-zealand-face

-chinas-influence.

17. The prime minister, speaking singly, referred to differences in political culture in vague and 

relativistic terms. However, she has issued a joint statement with the prime minister of Australia 

that provided more pointed criticism. Jacinda Ardern and Malcolm Turnbull, “Joint statement by 

the Hon Malcolm Turnbull and the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern” (press release, Wellington, 2 March 

2018), https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/joint-statement-hon-malcolm-turnbull-and-rt-hon

-jacinda-ardern.

18. Christopher Edward Carroll, “Cracks Appear in the New Zealand-China Relationship: Is 

the long China-New Zealand Honeymoon Finally Drawing to a Close?,” Diplomat, 18 January 

2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/01/cracks-appear-in-the-new-zealand-china-relationship/.

19. See for example: “New Zealand’s Relationship with China Is Deteriorating,’ Says Simon 

Bridges,” One News, 10 February 2019, https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/-new

-zealand-s-relationship-china-deteriorating-says-simon-bridges?variant=tb_v_1.
34 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

20. Lu Ding, “China’s ‘Two Centenary Goals’: Progress and Challenge,” East Asian Policy 8, no. 

2 (April/June 2016): 79–93.

21. China’s GDP per capita was USD 4,561 in 2010 and USD 8,827 in 2017, measured in 

current US dollars. “GDP per capita (current US$) – China,” World Bank, 22 March 2019, 

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=CN.

22. Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All 

Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” 

(address to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, 19 October 2017), 48.

23. Ibid., 49.

24. Jian Zhang, “China’s Role in the Pacific Islands Region,” in Regionalism, Security & Cooperation in Oceania, ed. Rouben Azizian and Carleton Cramer (Honolulu: Daniel K Inouye AsiaPacific Center for Security Studies, June 2015), 51, https://apcss.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08

/Regionalism-Security-Cooperation-Oceania.pdf.

25. Yu Chang Sen, “The Pacific Islands in Chinese Geo-strategic Thinking,” (conference paper, 

Apia, National University of Samoa, 25–27 February 2015), 9–13.

26. Strategic approach is offered here as an alternative to strategic culture. Strategic culture situates national strategy within the context of culture, history, and tradition: an approach that is unnecessary for the purpose of this paper.

27. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, China and the Age of Strategic Rivalry, 7.

28. Thomas G. Mahnken, “Thinking about Competitive Strategies,” in Competitive Strategies for 

the 21st Century: Theory, History, and Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 7.

29. Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory,” 52.

30. Philip Wen, “New Darwin Port Group’s Militia Links to China’s Military,” Sydney Morning 

Herald, 17 November 2015, https://www.smh.com.au/business/new-darwin-port-owners-militia

-links-to-chinas-military-20151117-gl1b4y.html.

31. Ibid.

32. John Garrick, “Darwin Port’s Sale Is a Blueprint for China’s Future Economic Expansion,” 

Conversation, 6 December 2018, https://theconversation.com/darwin-ports-sale-is-a-blueprint-for

-chinas-future-economic-expansion-108254.

33. Devin Thorne and Ben Spevack, Harbored Ambitions: How China’s Port Investments are 

Strategically Reshaping the Indo-Pacific (Washington, DC: C4ADS, 2017), 21, https://static1

.squarespace.com/static/566ef8b4d8af107232d5358a/t/5ad5e20ef950b777a94b55c3

/1523966489456/Harbored+Ambitions.pdf.

34. Ibid., 47–53.

35. Kristin Huang, “Why China Buying Up Ports Is Worrying Europe,” South China Morning 

Post, 23 September 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2165341/why

-china-buying-ports-worrying-europe.

36. Chris Uhlmann and Jane Norman, “Senior Defence Official Raises Security Concerns over 

Darwin Port Lease to Chinese-owned Company Landbridge,” ABC News (Australia), 14 October 

2015, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-15/adf-concerned-over-darwin-port-sale-to-chinese

-owned-company/6855182.

37. D.S.O.R., “Why US Marines Are Deployed to Australia’s Far North,” Economist, 6 February 2018, https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/02/06/why-us-marines-are

-deployed-to-australias-far-north.
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 35

38. Jane Perlez, “U.S. Casts Wary Eye on Australian Port Leased by Chinese,” New York 

Times, 20 March 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/australia/china-darwin

-port-landbridge.html.

39. Bradford A. Lee, “Strategic Interaction,” in Competitive Strategies for the 21st Century: Theory, 

History, and Practice, ed. Thomas G. Mahnken (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 37.

40. Ibid., 41.

41. Christopher Walsh, How and Why Did the Northern Territory Lease the Darwin Port to 

China, and at What Risk?,” ABC News (Australia), 13 March 2019, https://www.abc.net.au

/news/2019-03-12/why-did-northern-territory-sell-darwin-port-to-china-what-risk/10755720.

42. Ibid.

43. John Garrick, “Darwin Port’s Sale Is a Blueprint for China’s Future Economic Expansion,” 

Conversation, 6 December 2018, https://theconversation.com/darwin-ports-sale-is-a-blueprint

-for-chinas-future-economic-expansion-108254.

44. See for example, China’s actions in Europe, by which Beijing has established an alternative 

platform to the EU and undermined collective action within the EU by exerting economic influence over Greece: Naja Bentzen, “Foreign Influence Operations in the EU” (briefing, European 

Parliamentary Research Service, July 2018).

45. The People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia is explained in more detail at: Department of 

Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2018 (Washington, DC: DOD, 2018), 72.

46. Edward N. Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 

1987), 179–80.

47. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, China and the Age of Strategic Rivalry, 77.

48. Juan Pablo Cardenal, Jacek Kucharczyk, Grigorij Mesežnikov, and Gabriela Pleschová, Sharp 

Power: Risking Authoritarian Influence (Washington, DC: International Forum for Democratic 

Studies. December 2017), https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Sharp-Power-Rising

-Authoritarian-Influence-Full-Report.pdf.

49. Jamie Smyth, “Australian MP Quits in Chinese Influence Scandal,” Financial Times, 11 

December 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/7ac14e70-ded8-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c.

50. Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New 

York: Mariner, 2017), 7.

51. Sewell Chan, “Norway and China Restore Ties, 6 Years after Nobel Prize Dispute,” New York 

Times, 19 December 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/world/europe/china-norway

-nobel-liu-xiaobo.html.

52. “Nomination and selection of Peace Prize Laureates,” NobelPrize.org, 24 February 2019, 

https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/.

53. Shihar Aneez, “China’s ‘Silk Road’ Push Stirs Resentment and Protest in Sri Lanka,” Reuters, 

1 February 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sri-lanka-china-insight/chinas-silk-road-push

-stirs-resentment-and-protest-in-sri-lanka-idUSKBN15G5UT.

54. Thorne and Spevack, Harbored Ambitions, 47–53.

55. David Brewster, Why India Is Buying the World’s Emptiest Airport,” Interpreter, 14 July 

2018, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/why-india-buying-world-s-emptiest-airport.

56. Brady, “Magic Weapons.”

57. Ibid., 7.
36 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

58. Harrison Christian documents an incident from April 2018 where a United Front organization apparently paid Chinese counter-protesters to disrupt a Falun Gong demonstration: “No 

Place to Hide: Political Dissidents Fear China’s Influence,” Stuff, 24 June 2018, https://www.stuff

.co.nz/auckland/104827509/no-place-to-hide-political-dissidents-fear-chinas-influence.

59. Brady, “Magic Weapons,” 35.

60. Mark Jennings and Melanie Reid, “Newsroom Investigation: National MP Trained by Chinese Spies,” Newsroom, 11 March 2019, https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@summer-newsroom/2017

/09/12/46657/newsroom-investigation-national-mp-trained-by-chinese-spies.

61. Brady, “Magic Weapons,” 27.

62. Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross has alleged that the opposition leader ordered him to 

break a NZD 100,000 donation from a CCP-linked Chinese businessman into parcels of NZD 

15,000 or less to avoid donation disclosure laws. Brad Flahive, “Inside the Secretive World of 

Political Donations,” Stuff, 16 October 2018, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107885929

/inside-the-secretive-world-of-political-donations.

63. Harrison Christian, “China’s Multi-million Dollar Funding for NZ Universities Compromises Academic Freedom, Critics Say,” Stuff, 13 October 2018, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national

/education/106513030/chinas-multimillion-dollar-funding-for-nz-universities-compromises

-academic-freedom-critics-say.

64. Ibid.

65. Ethan Epstein, “How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms,” Politico, 17 January 2018, https://

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/16/how-china-infiltrated-us-classrooms-216327.

66. Marshall Sahlins, “Confucius Institutes: Academic Malware and Cold Warfare,” Inside 

Higher Ed, 26 July 2018, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/07/26/confucius-institutes

-function-propaganda-arms-chinese-government-opinion.

67. Alex Joske, “Picking Flowers, Making Honey: The Chinese Military’s Collaboration with 

Foreign Universities,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 30 October 2018, https://www.aspi

.org.au/report/picking-flowers-making-honey.

68. Teuila Fuatai and Sam Sachdeva, “SIS Investigates Chinese Student in Auckland,” Newsroom, 9 July 2018, https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/07/03/139050/sis-investigates-chinese

-engineer-in-auckland.

69. “Hu Case Pointer to Security Risks: NZ Universities May Boost Chinese Military Progress,” New Zealand Herald, 13 July 2018, https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-new

-zealand-herald/20180713/281694025547452.

70. The Australian Senate passed three bills in 2018 that strengthen legislation around foreign 

interference in the Australian political process. While the legislation was drafted in response to 

concerns raised by Australian intelligence about Chinese actions in particular, it addresses foreign 

rather than Chinese interference. The first bill requires any person or entity who engages in Australian politics on behalf of a foreign state or principal register as a foreign agent under the Foreign 

Influence Transparency Scheme. Under the second bill, Australian espionage laws have been updated with new provisions for secrecy, sabotage, and treason. Any person or entity who, while 

acting on behalf of a foreign state or principle, uses deceptive or threatening behavior to influence 

the Australian political process is liable to criminal prosecution under this bill. The third bill bans 

foreign political donations. To coordinate the new measures, the government established a Home 

Affairs portfolio, which coordinates Australia’s immigration, border protection, law enforcement, 

and domestic security agencies within a single portfolio.
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 37

71. S.3171 – Countering the Chinese Government and Communist Party’s Political Influence 

Operations Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018).

72. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, https://www.idea.int

/data-tools/country-view/74/55.

73. Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process (Ottawa: Communications Security Establishment, 2019), https://cyber.gc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/cse-cyber-threat-assessment-e.pdf.

74. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, https://www.idea.int

/data-tools/country-view/74/55.

75. See for example this report on the CCP’s Social Credit system: Samantha Hoffman, “Social Credit: Technology-enhanced Authoritarian Control with Global Consequences,” Australian 

Strategic Policy Institute, 28 June 2018, https://www.aspi.org.au/report/social-credit.

76. Sarah Williams, “New Zealand’s Two-way Trade with China More Than Triples over the 

Decade,” Stats NZ, 1 March 2018, https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/new-zealands-two-way-trade

-with-china-more-than-triples-over-the-decade.

77. Rebecca Howard, “China’s Milk Stockpile Leaves New Zealand dairy Farmers Struggling,” Reuters, 28 March 2016, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-dairy/chinas

-milk-stockpile-leaves-new-zealand-dairy-farmers-struggling-idUSKCN0WU1UU.

78. “Chinese Biggest Buyers of NZ Land in 2014,” New Zealand Herald, 29 January 2015, 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11393727.

79. British Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, National Security and 

Infrastructure Investment Review: The Government’s Review of the National Security Implications of Foreign Ownership or Control (London: DBEIS, 2017).

80. Ibid., 6.

81. Ibid.

82. Charlotte Greenfield, “New Zealand Rejects Huawei’s First 5G Bid Citing National Security Risk,” Reuters, 27 November 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spark-nz-huawei-tech

/new-zealand-rejects-huaweis-first-5g-bid-citing-national-security-risk-idUSKCN1NX08U.

83. Blake H. Berger, “Malaysia’s Canceled Belt and Road Initiative Projects and the Implications for China,” Diplomat, 27 August 2018, https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/malaysias-canceled

-belt-and-road-initiative-projects-and-the-implications-for-china/.

84. Thorne and Spevack, Harbored Ambitions, 34.

85. John Pomfret, “China’s Debt Traps around the World Are a Trademark of Its Imperialist 

Ambitions,” Washington Post, 27 August 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global

-opinions/wp/2018/08/27/chinas-debt-traps-around-the-world-are-a-trademark-of-its

-imperialist-ambitions/.

86. Bill Ide and Joyce Huang, “Caution, Cancellation, Protests as Concerns Grow on China’s 

Belt and Road,” VOA, 15 October 2018, https://www.voanews.com/a/caution-cancellations-protest

-concerns-grow-china-belt-road/4614103.html.

87. Harrison Christian, “New Zealand-China Relationship: What’s at Stake for Trade, Tourism, Students?,” Stuff, 19 February 2019, https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110664747/new

-zealandchina-relationship-whats-at-stake-for-trade-tourism-students.

88. Christian Novak, “New Zealand’s China Reset?,” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 20 

December 2018, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/new-zealands-china-reset/.

89. “China Market Overview,” Tourism New Zealand, https://www.tourismnewzealand.com

/markets-stats/markets/china/.
38 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Baker

90. Michael Martina and Philip Wen, “China Issues Travel Warning for Canada after ‘Arbitrary Detention’ of National,” Reuters, 15 January 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china

-canada-warning/china-issues-travel-warning-for-canada-after-arbitrary-detention-of-national

-idUSKCN1P90ZV.

91. “NZ Stabbed Us in the Back”: China Backlash as Tourists Cancel Trips,” New Zealand 

Herald, 17 February 2019, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/spotlight/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504095

&objectid=12204590.

92. Hamish Rutherford and John Anthony, “Air NZ Plane Forced to Turn Around after Airline Forgot to Remove Reference to Taiwan,” Stuff, 12 February 2019, https://www.stuff.co.nz

/business/110525974/air-nz-plane-forced-to-turn-around-after-airline-forgot-to-remove

-reference-to-taiwan.

93. Zhang, “China’s Role in the Pacific Islands Region,” 54.

94. Ibid., 46–48.

95. See for example, “Australia Is Battling China for Influence in the Pacific,” The Economist, 

17 January 2019, https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/01/19/australia-is-battling-china-for

-influence-in-the-pacific.

96. Susan Engel, “If There’s One Thing Pacific Nations Don’t Need, It’s Yet Another Infrastructure Investment Bank,” The Conversation, 20 November 2018, http://theconversation.com

/if-theres-one-thing-pacific-nations-dont-need-its-yet-another-infrastructure-investment

-bank-107198.

97. Rod McGuirk, “Australia Details Investment in Pacific as China Clout Grows,” AP News, 

7 November 2018, https://www.apnews.com/cf3404ef6f4b404197e83066179aa4f4.

98. Philip Wen and Jonathan Barrett, “PNG Lays on a Lavish Welcome for China’s Xi as He 

Arrives for APEC,” Reuters, 15 November 2018, https://www.apnews.com/cf3404ef6f4b404197

e83066179aa4f4.

99. Ben Doherty, “Bulk of Timber Exports from Papua New Guinea Won’t Pass Legal Test,” 

Guardian, 29 July 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/30/bulk-of-timber

-exports-from-papua-new-guinea-wont-pass-legal-test.

100. John Garrick, “Soft Power Goes Hard: China’s Economic Interest in the Pacific Comes 

with Strings Attached,” Conversation, 16 October 2018, https://theconversation.com/soft-power

-goes-hard-chinas-economic-interest-in-the-pacific-comes-with-strings-attached-103765.

101. Engel, “If There’s One Thing Pacific Nations Don’t Need.”

102. David Wroe, “China Eyes Vanuatu Military Base in Plan with Global Ramifications,” 

Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2018, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/china-eyes

-vanuatu-military-base-in-plan-with-global-ramifications-20180409-p4z8j9.html.

103. Ibid.

104. David Wroe, “The Great Wharf from China, Raising Eyebrows across the Pacific,” Sydney 

Morning Herald, 11 April 2018, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-great-wharf-from

-china-raising-eyebrows-across-the-pacific-20180411-p4z8yu.html.

105. Ibid.

106. Peters, Winston. “Shifting the Dial” (speech, Lowly Institute, Sydney, 1 March 2018), 

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/shifting-dial.

107. Ibid.

108. McGuirk, “Australia Details Investment in Pacific.”
New Zealand’s Strategic Challenge

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 39

109. John Lee, “Australia’s Plan to Challenge China in the South Pacific,” CNN, 8 November 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/australia/australia-china-south-pacific-analysis

-intl/index.html.

110. Ibid. Indeed, Australia’s motivations for engaging in its “Step-up to the Pacific” campaign 

has been touted as “the worst kept secret in Australian foreign policy.”

111. Ministry of Defence, Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018 (Wellington: MOD, 2018), 

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2018/strategic-defence-policy

-statement-2018.pdf.

112. Ardern and Turnbull, “Joint statement by the Hon Malcolm Turnbull and the Rt Hon 

Jacinda Ardern.”

113. See Nina Silove, “Beyond the Buzzword: The Three Meanings of ‘Grand Strategy’,” Security Studies 27, no. 1 (2018): 27–57, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.20

17.1360073

114. Alan G. Stolberg, How Nation-States Craft National Security Strategy Documents (Carlisle 

Barracks, PA: US Army War College, 2012).

115. See John Lukacs, “Finland Vindicated,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992, https://www

.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/1992-09-01/finland-vindicated.

116. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, National Security Policy, 18 October 

2018, https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/national-security-group/national-security-policy.

117. Stolberg, How Nation-States Craft National Security Strategy Documents, 111.

118. See for example the opposition party leader’s insistence that China’s diplomatic and trade 

retaliation against the Huawei ban is evidence of the government’s lack of competence in dealing 

with China: Audrey Young, “Bridges Says Jacinda Ardern’s Failure to Secure Visit to Beijing Is a 

Clear Message from China,” New Zealand Herald, 27 November 2018, https://www.nzherald

.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12167190.

119. Carol Abraham, “A New Zealand View,” in Naval Powers in the Indian Ocean and Western 

Pacific, ed. Howard Hensel and Amit Gupta (New York: Routledge, 2018), 158.

120. Thomas G. Mahnken, “Small States Have Options Too: Competitive Strategies against 

Aggressors,” War on the Rocks, 27 January 2016, https://warontherocks.com/2016/01/small-states

-have-options-too-competitive-strategies-against-aggressors/.
40 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

FEATURE

The China Coast Guard

Shifting from Civilian to Military Control in the Era of 

Regional Uncertainty

Ulises Granados

Abstract

As part of the restructuring of state organizations announced in March 2018, 

it is known that the China Coast Guard (CCG), previously controlled by the 

State Oceanic Administration, is coming under the administration of the People’s 

Armed Police (PAP) from the Central Military Commission (CMC). As a paradigmatic shift from a joint civilian–military control (State Council–CMC) to a 

purely military one, the reorganization of the CCG, only five years from the latest 

reshuffling, seems to reveal an the party’s increasing control over the military as 

outlined in the September 2017 CCP Central Committee and also the intention 

by the Chinese central government to provide the CCG with more flexibility and 

authority to act decisively in disputed waters in the East and South China Seas if 

needed. This article inquiries into the causes, logic, and likely regional consequences of such a decision. Amid the upgrading of insular features in the Spratlys, 

the deployment of bombers in the Paracels, and overall modernization of China’s 

naval capabilities, the article also explores plausible developments in which the 

PAP-led CCG, irregular maritime militias, and People’s Liberation Army Navy 

forces might coordinate more effectively efforts to safeguard self-proclaimed 

rights in littoral and blue-water areas in dispute.

Introduction

During the last eight years, East China Sea (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS) 

waters have been the setting of increased Chinese civil and naval activity that have 

altered the balance of power among Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian states, 

trying to cope with a more robust projection of Chinese maritime power. For 

China, possessing maritime power, as Michael McDevitt points out, includes a 

large coast guard, a world-class merchant marine and fishing fleet, shipbuilding 

capacity, and an ability to harvest from the sea marine resources.1 And while since 

at least 2014 the world has witnessed a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) 

projecting its presence around the globe (reaching the Mediterranean, the Horn 

of Africa, Latin America, and the South Pacific), the protection of sovereignty 

rights and ocean spaces close to the mainland and at its near seas through law 
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 41

enforcement should be considered as one of the main elements of China’s maritime power for years to come. As China maintains territorial disputes in the 

maritime realm over sovereignty in the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu) in the ECS, in 

the Paracels, Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal in the SCS, and jurisdictional rights 

over maritime sectors in both seas, ocean management system, including law enforcement at sea, has become of paramount importance for China.

As a response to this need to safeguard economic interests at sea and protect 

self-proclaimed sovereignty rights in both the ECS and the SCS under what 

Beijing perceives to be a current hostile regional environment, China has engaged 

since 2013 in extensive reforms of its overall ocean management system. In March 

2013, Beijing announced its plans to further centralize and reform China’s maritime law enforcement agencies by merging several authorities from ministries 

into a renewed State Ocean Administration/National Oceanic Administration 

(SOA) under the Ministry of Land and Resources. Broadly speaking, the decision 

was taken to improve national legislation as well as to better protect and use 

maritime resources and territory.

However, only five years later, several internal causes—including uncertainty 

over clear assignation of responsibilities, the extent of involvement of the China 

Coast Guard (CCG) in law enforcement operations, as well as external ones—

mainly regional responses to civilian and naval Chinese activities in both seas, 

eventually led to profound changes in China’s ocean management system. In 

March 2018, the central government decided to put the CCG under the administration of the People’s Armed Police (PAP) under the direct command of the 

Central Military Commission (CMC). By revealing thus an increasing Communist Party of China (CPC) control over the military as outlined during the 

September 2017 Central Committee, such a new reshuffle also demonstrates the 

intention by the Chinese central government to provide the CCG with more 

flexibility and authority to act decisively in disputed waters in the East and South 

China Seas at a time when regional and nonregional actors continue to challenge 

China’s activities at sea.

The article first analyzes the context, causes and prevailing problems framing 

the 2013 initial ocean management system reform in China when the upgraded 

SOA and its CCG as a centralized law enforcement body emerged. Second, the 

economic logic of the reform, a logic that has prevailed after a second reorganization in 2018, is also analyzed at three levels, namely as a decision responding to 

short-term economic strategies, as part of a long-term oceanic strategy, and as a 

manifestation of legal and security policies envisioned for the last three decades to 

protect maritime interests and rights. The third section then reviews relevant 

causes and events that ultimately led to the 2018 second reorganization of the 
42 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

CCG, including the increasingly manifest role of maritime militias whose activities have clearly overlapped those of the CCG and the more dominant role of the 

CPC and the military since the beginning of the second term of Pres. Xi Jinping. 

The fourth section focuses attention on the geopolitical dimension of the reforms 

and the regional implications of China’s assertive behavior, including ongoing 

responses and security arrangements by the United States, Japan, India, and Australia with partners and allies in Southeast Asia. A general conclusion explores 

potential scenarios of a new, invigorated ocean management system that nonetheless may be responsible for more instability in the SCS and the ECS.

The Reformed SOA

Two important events were paramount in shaping the need for a reformed 

SOA and a more active role of the CCG as an integral part of China’s current 

oceanic strategy. The first was Japan’s nationalization of three islands in the 

Senkaku/Diaoyu group in the ECS in 2012 after Tokyo Metropolitan Government Governor Shintaro Ishihara started a campaign to purchase these islands 

from a private individual owning the property deed. The second was the standoff 

between China and the Philippines in Scarborough Shoal in the SCS in 2012 

following the Philippine Coast Guard’s arrest of several Chinese fishermen working in the area. This incident is particularly relevant as China Maritime Surveillance (CMS) and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC) ships reportedly orchestrated the standoff.2

 It was mainly this incident that later triggered 

Philippine legal action in initiating arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court 

of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague in early 2013.

There were relevant reasons for implementing the ocean management system 

reform. First, there existed a need to speed economic development profiting from 

the coastal areas and further develop the marine economy. Second, there was a 

desire to create a higher level, stronger agency that integrates resource management and offers systematic services to the development of marine economy and to 

safeguard rights and interests at sea. And third, there was an imperative to reduce 

implementation costs of marine-related legislation.

Above all, the reform recognized the existence of severe bureaucratic problems. 

Before 2012 there were around 17 agencies and ministries involved in maritime 

management in China, which brought overlapping legal and jurisdictional functions and conflicts that impeded coordination. The deliberations on reform in 

2012–2013 were the result of a rather long debate originated more than a decade 

before. In 1998, there was a debate on whether to set up a National Oceanic 

Administration Council.3 In 2003 came another proposal by the Chinese Society 

of Oceanography to create a modern law enforcement agency. Eventually, nine 
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 43

years later, on 4 March 2012, Admiral Luo Yuan proposed in the Chinese People’s 

Political Consultative Conference the creation of a coast guard to confront maritime disputes.4

 The same year the Leading Small Group on Maritime Rights (中

央海洋权益工作领导小组) was established.

Until 2012, China’s main agencies and official bodies involved in marine management were the Ministry of Land and Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture, 

the provincial governments, the General Administration of Customs, the Ministry 

of Public Security, the Ministry of Transport, the State Oceanic Administration, 

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the 

National Tourism Administration, several state-owned oil companies, and the 

PLAN. Among them, however, the main five law enforcement agencies, four of 

them involved in the later overall restructuring, were the following: (1) the Chinese 

Coast Guard Administration, under the Ministry of Public Security; (2) the Customs Anti-Smuggling Bureau, under the General Administration of Customs; 

(3)  the China Marine Surveillance, under the State Oceanic Administration; 

(4) the Fishery Law Enforcement Command, under the Ministry of Agriculture; 

and (5) the Maritime Safety Administration, under the Ministry of Transport.

On 14 March 2013, during the first Plenary Session of the 12th National 

People Congress, the “Transformation Plan of the Agencies and Functions of the 

State Council” (国务院机构改革和职能转变方案) was discussed and adopted.5

Article 5 defined the restructuring of the new SOA, carrying out law enforcement 

activities under a new CCG under the dual authority of the Ministry of Land and 

Resources and the Ministry of Public Security. Because of the Transformation 

Plan, four agencies, namely a Maritime Border Police, the General Administration of Customs, the China Marine Surveillance, and the Fishing Regulation 

Administration, moved under the authority of a new SOA, while the Ministry of 

Transport assumed authority over the Maritime Safety Administration.6 The new 

coast guard thus emerged from the above four agencies.

As the main maritime law enforcement agency, the CCG territorial areas were 

later defined, emulating the PLAN fleets’ areas of responsibility along China’s 

littorals. Three divisions for the CCG were created: the North Sea Branch, the 

East Sea Branch, and the South Sea Branch, as well as 11 CCG commands and 

flotillas in coastal provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities under the 

Central Government (Tianjin and Shanghai.)7 The highest consultative organ of 

the SOA was the State Oceanic Commission (国家海洋委员会), whose main 

functions were to formulate development strategies and to coordinate relevant 

oceanic matters and decisions to be assumed by the SOA. Unfortunately, there is 

no substantial public information on the State Oceanic Commission.
44 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

The Economic Logic of the SOA/CCG Reform

For China, the 2013 reorganization of the SOA, and later the 2018 second reshuffle, follows an economic logic that, as mentioned above, has paid more attention to the defense and economic development of those marine areas susceptible 

to state control. In these areas, particularly in the SCS and the ECS, law enforcement has been deemed essential for economic development and economic security at several levels.

First, a better control of the coastal regions through a more effective CCG had 

in mind an overall economic strategy enshrined in China’s 13th Five-Year Plan 

(FYP) 2016–2020.8 The reorganization of the law enforcement agencies has the 

overall objective of fostering and protecting the marine economy as well as safeguarding China’s maritime rights and interests with the goal of turning China 

into what has been stated as a strong maritime country. As Ryan Martinson posits, such a maritime transformation meant an increase in the importance of the 

ocean in a state’s grand strategy.9 A stronger SOA is thought to enable China to 

reach objectives specified in the 13th FYP. In line with the overall goals of building what Beijing calls a moderately prosperous society, the CPC has bet for a 

medium-high rate of growth for the next years, a better coordinated development 

between inland and coastal regions, and an overall improvement in the quality of 

the environment and ecosystems, including marine ones, among other goals.10

Chapter 41 of the 13th FYP, entitled “Widen Space for the Blue Economy,” 

states, “We will . . . safeguard China’s maritime rights and interests, building China 

into a strong maritime country. . . . We will . . . support Hainan in using South 

China Sea resources to develop a distinctive marine economy.”11 As stated in the 

document, a new CCG should ultimately be instrumental in better safeguarding 

maritime rights and interests. The FYP further states,

“We will effectively safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights 

and interests. We will strengthen the capabilities of maritime law enforcement 

organizations, deepen historical and legal research on maritime issues, coordinate 

the use of different measures to safeguard and expand China’s maritime rights 

and interests, see that maritime torts are properly handled, and ensure navigational freedom and maritime safety within waters under China’s jurisdiction. We 

will take an active part in the establishment and protection of the international 

and regional maritime order, improve dialogue and cooperation mechanisms 

with neighboring countries regarding maritime issues, and promote pragmatic 

maritime cooperation. We will further improve mechanisms for coordinating 

marine affairs, strengthen the top-level design of maritime strategies, and formulate a basic maritime law.”12
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 45

Second, the reorganization of the SOA and the law enforcement functions 

through the CCG should be viewed as part of Beijing’s long-term oceanic strategy 

to ultimately develop China into a strong marine economy and a maritime world 

power, using the CCG for the civilian mandate of marine safety and security, 

playing a similar role of those assigned to the PLAN—defense and China’s offshore interests. During the plenary session of the 8th National Congress of the 

CPC on 8 November 2012, Pres. Hu Jintao highlighted the overall goals involving relevant maritime policies: “We should enhance our capacity for exploiting 

marine resources, develop the marine economy, protect the marine ecological 

environment, resolutely safeguard China’s maritime rights and interests, and build 

China into a maritime power.”13

Third, the reform of the SOA and its CCG in the 2013 Transformation Plan 

was perceived as part of a series of legislations and security policy measures to 

better secure coastal territory through military and civilian law enforcement. Both 

the 2013 White Paper on Defense and the 2015 White Paper on Military Strategy 

included directives for the armed forces to protect its maritime border areas:

“To safeguard border, coastal and territorial air security, and protect national 

maritime rights and interests... ...China will resolutely take all necessary measures to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”14

“It is thus a long-standing task for China to safeguard its maritime rights and 

interests.”15

From a legal perspective, relevant legislation to protect marine areas has already 

been passed since at least the early 1990s, including the following: the 1992 Law 

of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 

covering the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands; the 1992 Maritime Law of the People’s 

Republic of China; the 1996 Declaration on the Baselines of the Territorial Sea, 

including the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea; the 1998 Law on Exclusive 

Economic Zone and Continental Shelf; the 2009 Marine Islands Protection Law 

and its program approved in 2012; the 2011 Approved Regulations for the Use 

and Development of Marine Habited Islands; the 2012 Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Baselines of the Diaoyu Island 

and its affiliated islands; and the 2016 Approved Regulations for the Use and 

Development of Marine Non-Habited Islands.16

An Armed CCG: The Militarization of the Agency

One of the main questions related to the second CCG 2018 reform is whether 

after 2013 it served better than its envisioned purpose. It was believed that a 

strong civilian CCG would serve to mitigate conflict at sea or avoid direct military 
46 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

confrontation with other states in the SCS and ECS. And yet, in the five years of 

the SOA’s existence, events in those two maritime regions seem to have called not 

only for a unified CCG for law enforcement but also for a fully armed CCG with 

stronger and more direct links with the military.

Both in the ECS and the SCS, Chinese fishermen, maritime militia, and CCG 

activities increased since the SOA reform, revealing a rather clear pattern of assertiveness. In 2014, reports indicated that Chinese boats fishing illegally in Japanese waters reached a peak, when the Japanese coast guard ordered Chinese vessels 

to leave the area around the Senkaku Islands on 208 occasions.17 The number of 

incidents involving Chinese fishermen and coast guard vessels entering Japaneseclaimed waters has continued to rise since 2015 and dramatically so by mid-2016.18

(US Coast Guard photo by Coast Guard Cutter Morgenthau)

Figure 1. South China Sea. The US Coast Guard Cutter Morgenthau and China Coast Guard 

vessel 2102 steam alongside each other during the transfer of the fishing vessel Yin Yuan, 

3 June 2014. The Morgenthau crew was patrolling in support of Operation North Pacific 

Guard, the US Coast Guard’s component of a multilateral fisheries law enforcement operation designed to detect and deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing activity.

Roughly at the same time, China started what has become known as the most 

extensive land reclamation in the SCS, seven islands and reefs,19 while in spring 

2014, the Chinese state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation moved 

its Hai Yang Shi You 981 oil platform to waters near the disputed Paracel Islands 

in the SCS, resulting in Hanoi attempting to prevent the platform from establish-
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 47

ing a fixed position. Moreover, amid the PCA’s ruling of 12 June 2016 in favor of 

the Philippines, the Chinese government seemed to have ordered stronger civilian 

and naval presence in both the SCS and the ECS. Between 5–9 August that year, 

reports indicated that CCG ships, including the CCG 35102 and about 230 fishing vessels, sailed near the Senkaku area, while by 17 August, around 300 fishing 

vessels and 28 patrol ships reportedly reached the outside of the territorial waters 

of Senkaku Islands.20 By October 2016, the number of Chinese incursions in the 

ECS Senkaku area had surpassed 30 ships.

Coinciding with President Xi’s reelection, pertinent changes were prepared for 

the 13th National People’s Congress in early March 2018 that involved not only 

a dramatic change in China’s oceanic management system but also revealed Xi’s 

tighter grip as the leader of the CPC over the state institutions in charge of protecting maritime areas. During the Congress, the State Council Institutional 

Reform Plan (深化党和国家机构改革方案) was unveiled, with extensive restructuring plans of the central government, leaving the State Council with only 

26 ministries and commissions. Among these proposals were the dissolution of 

the fledgling five-year-old SOA, moving its responsibilities to other ministries 

and agencies, including a change of command in the CCG from a civilian SOA 

to the Central Military Commission (CMC). Following these changes, the main 

current institutions with authority over ocean activities are as follows:

1. A brand new Ministry of Natural Resources (after the dissolution of the 

Ministry of Land and Resources), in charge of oversight of the development and conservation of marine resources, surveying, and geological exploration of the seabed;

2. The Ministry of Ecology and Environment, which will assume the functions of marine environment protection, a task until 2018 delegated to the 

SOA. Additionally, some responsibilities for the enforcement of environmental laws for oceans were assigned to this ministry from the CCG;21

3. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, which oversees aquaculture 

and wild capture fisheries;

4. The Ministry of Transport, in charge of administration of China’s fishing 

fleet and inspection and supervision of fishing vessels; and,

5. A new CCG under the authority of the People’s Armed Police (PAP).
48 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

A central part of this restructure came in the realm of maritime security. Between 

2013 and 2018, the tasks of patrolling and law enforcement in the ECS and the 

SCS comprised three levels: (1) a military blue-water PLAN force, (2) the civilian 

“white hull” CCG, and (3) when necessary, a “low profile” green fleet-Chinese 

militia organized within the PAP.

To downgrade the level of escalation between China and its neighbors’ law 

enforcement agencies—both in the ECS in the Senkakus and in the SCS in the 

Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal—Beijing had until now privileged the presence 

of its white-hull CCG as a civilian force. However, at the same time, when deemed 

necessary, Chinese provincial authorities have ordered the presence of its maritime militia, considered an integral part of a three-pronged trident, to harass or 

thwart external actors’ operations, such as freedom of navigation operations 

(FONOP) by the US Navy in the SCS since 2015.22 This means that even though 

the CCG is supposed to be the supporting soft power in safeguarding maritime 

areas, leaving the PLAN presence mainly as a hard support for the CCG to contain possible escalation, in fact there remains in the middle an irregular military 

force, the maritime militia, in charge of taking escalatory measures not suitable for 

either the PLAN units or CCG regular law enforcement.

It is important to underline that the CCG, alike the maritime militia, had been 

considered as a purely civilian force under civilian command for patrolling maritime zones under self-recognized national jurisdiction (territorial sea, contiguous 

zone, and exclusive economic zone.) Albeit a civilian force, however, since 2013 

the CCG’s law enforcement capabilities have been upgrading. For example, in 

December 2015, the CCG 31239 ship and two more entered the waters near the 

Senkaku Islands, reportedly armed with weapons.23 Later, in February 2016, the 

CCG 31241, 2102, and 2305 ships were also spotted near the Senkaku Islands. 

Thus, even before being placed under military command in 2018, the CCG firepower has developed steadily. Both CCG and “fishermen” maritime militia’s incursions have continued. Currently, the CCG force is comprised of more than 200 

vessels, including the massive 12,000-ton CCG 3901 spotted in the SCS in 2016 

and the CCG 2901 operating in the ECS since 2015,24 making this law enforcement fleet the largest in the world.
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 49

As has become evident, the scope of CCG law enforcement ships activities, 

including the potential of use of force when necessary, have increased. However, 

like the maritime militia, command and control of the CCG was not under the 

military and rules of engagement seemed to be rather confused for a civilian 

force—even under a unified SOA. It is amid the growing importance of the CCG 

and the maritime militia, both with different chains of commands, that the March 

2018 reorganization of functions was framed. Based on the March 2018 Plan, 

during the session of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 

a resolution was finally passed on 22 June 22 specifying the authority and responsibilities of the reshuffled CCG. Among them are the following: (1)  cracking 

down on illegal activities at sea, (2) safeguarding security and order of maritime 

operations, (3) protecting the marine environment and ecosystems, (4) regulating 

the fishing industry, and (5) coordinating and training local governments’ maritime law enforcement. 25 Now, the distinction has been solved between civilian 

and military command during law enforcement operations in disputed areas 

largely considered as core interests.

More importantly, with the dissolution of the SOA, the CCG has been effectively transferred to the CPC under the authority of the PAP—under the direct 

command of the CMC, along with the PLA and the militia.26 This decision means 

that the CPC and its Secretary General Xi Jinping may be the ultimate decision 

maker, as chairman of the CMC, of any action in both maritime areas. The transfer of the CCG from the defunct SOA to the PAP came into force 1 July 2018.

The Geopolitical Dimension

Before the 2018 restructuring, the consequences of the reorganization of China’s institutions in charge of ocean affairs, mainly the SOA and its CCG, became 

manifest as explained above in more aggressive law enforcement activities in the 

ECS and the SCS. In response, several regional and nonregional actors have reacted to quickly cope with such an assertive China. The regional geopolitical dimension of the 2013 reorganization, the subsequent activities in both maritime 

areas (mainly the massive construction of artificial installation at the Spratlys 

under the protection of CCG and PLAN forces), and the new 2018 CCG reorganization involve a regional geopolitical dimension with extensive repercussions 

for several regional and extraregional stakeholders.

First, there is a growing presence of US naval forces in the region in the form of 

FONOPs and through deeper naval cooperation between Washington and its allies in the region. The United States has been challenging what it considers China’s 

excessive maritime claims,27 and by July 2018 had conducted a total of 11 FONOPs 

in the SCS off the Paracels, the Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal (see table 1).
50 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

Table 1. Obama, Trump Administrations’ FONOP, South China Sea

Date USS ship Area (S:Spratlys, P:Paracels)

21 May 2015 P-8A Poseidon (Overflight) Fiery Cross (S)

18 July 2015 P-8A Poseidon (Overflight) Spratlys

27 October 2015 Lassen Subi, Mischief (S)

29 January 2016 Curtis Wilbur Triton (P)

10 May 2016 William P. Lawrence Fiery Cross (S)

21 October 2016 Decatur Triton, Woody (P)

February 2017 Carl Vinson strike group South China Sea

24 May 2017 Dewey Mischief (S)

2 July 2017 Stethem Triton (P)

10 August 2017 John S. McCain Mischief (S)

10 October 2017 Chafee Paracels

21 January 2018 Hopper Scarborough Shoal

23 March 2018 Mustin Mischief (S)

27 May 2018 Antietam, Higgins Tree, Woody, Lincoln, Triton (P)

30 Sep 2018 Decatour Spratlys

26 Nov 2018 Chancellorsville Paracels

7 Jan 2019 McCampbell Paracels

11 Feb 2019 Spruance, Preble Mischief (S)

6 May 2019 Preble, Chung Hoon Gave, Johnson (S)

Source: Eleanor Freund and Andrew Facini, “Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide,” Belfer Center for Science 

and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 2017, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-southchina-sea-practical-guide28 and author’s compilations.

Moreover, to bolster interoperability in the Indo-Pacific, the US, Indian, and 

Japanese navies already participate on a permanent basis since 2015 in the upgraded Malabar Exercise in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. Washington 

has also been pressing Australia, Japan, and India to participate in FONOPs in 

the SCS amid the recently revived “Quad”—so far to no avail.29 Similarly, the 

US–Taiwan overall relationship has entered into a new phase of cooperation since 

the beginning of the Trump administration, when the US president approached 

the Tsai Ing-wen government in early December 2017; recently the US Congress 

eventually resolved differences over the National Defense Authorization Act for 

2019 which included provisions for supporting Taiwan’s defense and cooperation 

between the militaries of both countries.30

Second, Tokyo has received reassurances from Washington over the US–Japan 

security alliance in the ECS, while at the same time, there are clear cooperation 

schemes in place between Japan and the Philippines, India, and Malaysia in the 

SCS. As a direct claimant in the Senkaku Islands dispute, Tokyo has obtained 

since 2012 clear assurances that the Senkaku area falls under the 1960 Security 
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 51

Treaty area as agreed in the 1972 Okinawa Reversion Treaty and is therefore 

subject to collective defense by the United States in case of potential hostilities by 

China.31 This is particularly important for Japan, as Chinese fishermen, fishermendisguised maritime militia, CCG, PLA vessels, and even submarines32 have entered the area on a seemingly permanent basis.

In reaction to these consistent incursions of Chinese fishing boats, CCG vessels, and naval ships, Japan has increased its military budget and accelerated procurement programs over the past few years. In December 2015, Tokyo confirmed 

Japan was setting up antiship and antiaircraft missile batteries on 200 islands in 

the ECS and increasing the number of military personnel on these islands to 

around 10,000 over the next five years.33 In April 2016, 10 newly built 1,500-ton 

patrol ships and two helicopter-equipped patrol vessels were also deployed to patrol the Senkakus with a personnel of 606 coast guard personnel assigned exclusively to the area.34 Also, the Japanese Ministry of Defense budget requested for 

the fiscal year 2017 included around 1.6 billion USD (180 billion yen) for the 

purchase of stealth fighters, V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and Chinook twinrotor helicopter to patrol the islands.35 The helicopter carrier JS Izumo (DDH183) held it first overseas voyage in 2017, and public information reveals that the 

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ( JMSDF) plans to convert its two Izumoclass warships into aircraft carriers, supporting F-35 Lightning fighters.36 For 

2018 the Japanese Coast Guard is further deploying jets in a “24-hour patrol 

system” to monitor the islands,37 and the number is likely to increase as only four 

days after the CCG reorganization in force on 1 July 2018 CCG ships were reportedly intruding into the Senkaku territorial waters.38

Regarding its partners with vested interests in the SCS, Japan has encouraged 

cooperation and hardware transfer deals, particularly with the Philippines. After 

the July 2016 PCA ruling in favor of Manila, Tokyo increased cooperation in the 

procurement of patrol vessels. In October 2016, Japan extended a 157 million 

USD loan for the purchase of two Philippine patrol vessels as the first part of a 

204 million USD loan for the total purchase of 10 vessels.39 More recently, in 

March 2018, Japan transferred three secondhand TC-90 utility aircraft to the 

Philippine Navy to boost surveillance activities.40 With India, the alignment of 

interests in preserving open sea lines of communication in the region has led to 

the aforementioned trilateral naval Malabar Exercise with the United States 

(Australia has been politely excluded by India from the exercise) as well as common support for the 2016 PCA ruling against China.41 Moreover, as part of the 

JMSDF decision to promote a free-and-open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), the Izumoclass helicopter carriers Izumo and Kaga were sent to the SCS and the Indian 

Ocean in 2017 and 2018, respectively.42 Malaysia and Indonesia also share a desire 
52 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

for a free-and-open SCS, thus enabling Japan to advance shared agendas in the 

region vis-à-vis Beijing. Since November 2016, the Malaysian maritime enforcement agency acquired two decommissioned patrol boats from Japan.43 Later, during the visit of Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad to Tokyo on 

June 2018 and amid Kuala Lumpur’s current detachment from China and rapprochement toward Japan, Prime Minister Abe pledge further cooperation for 

regional peace and stability, including in the area of maritime safety by keeping a 

SCS free and open based on the rule of law.44 As part of Tokyo’s effort to promote 

its FOIP strategy, Japan pledge to provide 23 million USD to aid Indonesia for 

development of fishery facilities in remote islands, including Natuna, whose exclusive economic zone overlaps with the Chinese U-shaped line.45

Third, the Chinese civil and naval presence in the SCS has led India and even 

Australia to assume greater roles in balancing Beijing’s power against its Southeast Asian neighbors (Vietnam and the Philippines in particular) on both the 

security and diplomatic fronts. In 2017, as part of Delhi’s current Act East Policy 

and hoping to become an arms exporter, India started talks with Vietnam for the 

sale of Akash short-range surface-to-air missiles, and in 2016, Prime Minister 

Narendra Modi’s government announced a 500 million USD credit line to Vietnam to buy patrol boats.46 During Modi’s March 2018 visit to Hanoi, the two 

countries bolstered this bilateral cooperation with further agreements on nuclear 

energy, trade, and investment—and particularly in the areas of defense and security.47 Providing support to the Philippines in the aftermath of the 2016 PCA 

ruling against China, India concurred with Vietnam that the United Nations 

Convention for the Law of the Sea should be the legal reference to implement 

international legal obligations and peacefully settle territorial disputes in the 

SCS.48 Similarly, Australia has deepened its security cooperation with the Philippines. In line with Canberra’s 2017 Foreign Paper, which highlighted the need to 

keep an uninterrupted trade route for the flow of Australian goods,49 Australia has 

pursued deeper strategic security arrangements with Manila. In 2015, the Philippine Navy acquired five ships from Australia, and in March 2016, Australia delivered three heavy landing craft to the Philippine Navy.50 Additionally, Australian 

Navy ships regularly visit Philippine ports in the SCS, which has provoked sharp 

reactions from the PLAN since late 2017.51 Reports indicate that in April 2018 

three Australian warships were challenged in the SCS on a patrol mission after 

leaving port in Subic Bay, Philippines.52
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 53

Conclusions: 

China’s Maritime Law Enforcement in the Coming Years

In 2013, amid the first reorganization of the civilian maritime agencies, there 

was some optimism that even though China’s maritime security policy seemed 

very assertive by then and unlikely to change in the following years, using CCG 

would help demilitarize the conflicts in the ECS and the SCS, as well as avoid 

direct military confrontation with claimant states.53 However, as shown throughout this article, the level of escalation and potential conflict—either by civilian, 

quasi-civilian or naval in nature—in the ECS and SCS hotspots in the Senkakus, 

Paracels, Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal steadily grown since 2015. A fully 

armed CCG is largely in charge of patrolling waters outside the exclusive economic zone and territorial waters off the Senkakus, around artificial installations 

recently built in the SCS, and at Scarborough Shoal—blocking economic activities of Philippine fishermen. This improved CCG fleet, as recognized by other 

countries such as the United States and Japan,54 will afford China the capability 

to continue patrols in areas claimed in both maritime areas in conflict, helping the 

PLAN to strengthen what has been called the “strategic triangle” area connecting 

Woody Island in the Paracels, artificial installations in the Spratlys, and Scarborough Shoal off the Philippines.55

Moreover, partly as a reaction of the regular FONOPs conducted by the US 

Navy, as a response of being uninvited to the 2018 RIMPAC Exercise and amid a 

more visible presence of other countries’ navies in the region, an increasingly 

modernized PLAN force put on its latest show of force. In 2018 it staged naval 

live-fire drills and formation maneuvers in the SCS between 24 March and 11 

April56 and again 5–7 July, while in mid-July in the ECS it staged a six-day livefire exercise to test combat strength against Taiwan.57 Now, the CCG, maritime 

militia and PLAN units, all three under the direct command of the CMC, seem 

much better coordinated to face threats in those maritime areas contested by other 

countries and that are deemed essential for China’s long-term development 

strategy. In late June 2018, President Xi reportedly told US Secretary of Defense 

James Mattis that China will not yield “even one inch” of territory in the SCS.58

Unfortunately, the future of both maritime regions’ stability remains murky as 

the full effects of the latest maritime agencies’ reform are yet to be known. In the 

SCS, even though in November 2017 China and the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations states started negotiations on the details of the long-awaited Code 

of Conduct (CoC) and by August 2018 a single draft was put forward with an 

agreement to finalize it within three years starting from 2019, it is unclear whether 

China will accept any compromise to the document that would weaken regular law 
54 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

enforcement activities by the CCG, its maritime militia, or the PLAN. It is also 

unclear whether the current Xi administration will engage in land reclamation in 

Scarborough Shoal like in the Spratlys, despite public commitments not to do it.

As the CCG and maritime militia have been the advance forces in the Paracels 

and Spratlys, it is rather logical they will play a leading role in the eventual upgrading of Chinese posts at Scarborough Shoal in the future. It goes without 

saying, of course, that any action China pursues in the SCS seen as hindering 

freedom of navigation and damaging the ecosystem would surely be met at several 

levels of opposition from stakeholders. It remains to be seen, thus, to what extent 

the CCG—and maritime militias—activities will harmonize with a future CoC 

in the prevention and management of incidents at sea, a possible area of negotiation that, as Ian Storey believes, will likely be included in the future.59 Overall, 

political will in Beijing to de-escalate tensions in the SCS, rather that the upgrading of the CCG, is likely to be crucial for the stability of the region.

In the ECS, an upgraded CCG presence is most likely to continue posing a risk 

to stability and has been the cause, together with the North Korean threat, for the 

current rise in arms spending in Japan and increase in human resources at the Japan Coast Guard. Massive incursions of “fishing boats” guarded by CCG and 

PLAN vessels, like the one reported in August 2016, are likely to repeat. Moreover, 

as events in the Senkakus and the SCS are somehow related and Chinese behavior 

and responses in one scenario have repercussions in the other region, it is likely that 

the overall SCS dispute will have a direct impact in the ECS. As China demands 

the United States and Japan refrain from further involvement in the SCS dispute 

and downplays calls for a FOIP, Beijing’s assertiveness is likely to exacerbate tensions with Tokyo in the Senkakus in the form of an increase in the number of sea 

and air incursions around the islands. This in turn may trigger further escalation 

from Japan, either in the form of a possible participation of JMSDF in FONOPs 

along with the US, French, British, or Australian forces in the SCS or by shifting 

defense in the Senkakus from the Japanese Coast Guard to the JMSDF.

A final note: as relevant as the 2013 and 2018 reforms are, and as ominous as 

its regional implications are for the future, China’s ruling party and government 

continue to bet on peace and development to achieve the status of a truly maritime power and a fully developed nation by about 2049. Long-term economic 

maritime strategies, such as that envisioned for the Silk Route Initiative, only 

advance through regional cooperation, and that is why Southeast and Northeast 

Asian neighbors should expect a less confrontational China. It should be in the 

supreme interest of China to guarantee the freedom of passage and overflight in 

those areas, and it should be in the interest of all parties involved to de-escalate 

tensions in those disputed territories. Probably this will give perspective to those 
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 55

calling for a more aggressive response against China’s actions and will shape policy 

making in Beijing among those inclining to ignore years of diplomacy dealing 

with an increasingly turbulent maritime Asia. 

Dr. Ulises Granados

Dr. Granados is a professor of international studies and coordinator of the Asia Pacific Studies Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México. He holds and bachelor of arts in international relations from Universidad 

Nacional Autónoma de México, a master of arts in Asia and Africa studies from El Colegio de México, and a PhD 

in history for the University of Tokyo. 

Previously, Dr. Granados served as an instructor at several Japanese universities, including Daito Bunka University, 

International Christian University, Sophia University, and Utsunomiya University. He was also an associate professor at the University of Tokyo and served as a news anchor at the international service NHK World in Japan. He 

regularly organizes symposia and conferences, authors academic works, and appears regularly as a news analyst on 

Indo-Pacific issues.

Notes

1. Michael McDevitt, “Beijing’s Dream: Becoming a Maritime Superpower”, National Interest, 1 July 2016, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/beijings-dream-becoming-maritime

-superpower-16812.

2. Jilet Koshy, “Non-Naval Dimensions of Chinese Sea Power: An Analysis,” Naval War College 

Journal 26 (2014), 145, https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/sites/default/themes/indiannavy/images

/pdf/resources/article_14.pdf.

3. International Crisis Group, “Stirring up the South China Sea (I),” Asia Report No. 223, 23 April 

2012, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/south-china-sea/stirring-south-china-sea-i.

4. Ibid.

5. “Shou quan fabu: guowuyuan jigou gaige he zhineng zhuanbian fang ́an” (The Transformation Plan of the Agencies and Functions of the State Council), State Council, People’s Republic 

of China, 15 March 2013, http://www.gov.cn/2013lh/content_2354443.htm.

6. Nong Hong, “China’s Maritime Law Enforcement Reform and Its Implication on the 

Regional Maritime Disputes”, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 1 April 2015, https://amti

.csis.org/chinas-maritime-law-enforcement-reform-and-its-implication-on-the-regional

-maritime-disputes/.

7. Chang Yen-Chiang, “Getting into a New Maritime-Era?—A Commentary on the Restructuring of the State oceanic Administration in China,” Oceanography 2, no. 3 (2014), 2.

8. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, The 13 Five-Year Plan for Economic and 

Social Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2016–2020 (Beijing: Central Compilation & 

Translation Press, 2015), http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policyrelease/201612/P020161207645766966662.pdf.

9. Ryan D. Martinson, “The 13th Five-Year Plan: A New Chapter in China’s Maritime Transformation,” Jamestown Foundation, China Brief 16, no. 1, 12 January 2016, https://jamestown.org

/program/the-13th-five-year-plan-a-new-chapter-in-chinas-maritime-transformation/.

10. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, The 13 Five-Year Plan for Economic 

and Social Development, 15.

11. Ibid., 116–17.

12. Ibid., 118.

13. Full text of Hu Jintao’s report at 18th Party Congress, People’s Daily, 19 November 2012, 

http://en.people.cn/102774/8024786.html.
56 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

14. Information Office of the State Council, People‘s Republic of China, “Full Text: The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces. 2013 White Paper on Defense,” People’s Daily, 

April 2013, http://en.people.cn/90786/8209362.html.

15. Ministry of National Defense, People’s Republic of China, “China’s Military Strategy,” 

State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, May 2015, http://eng.mod

.gov.cn/Press/2015-05/26/content_4586805.htm.

16. For a detailed list of major laws and regulations related to coastal zone management in 

China, see Sheng-nan Chen and Stuart Pearson, “Managing China’s Coastal Environment: Using 

a Legal and Regulatory Perspective,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Development 6, no. 3 (March 2015), 226.

17. Jeremy Bender, “Here‘s China’s Latest Tactic to Take a Disputed Island Chain from Japan,” 

Business Insider, 23 October 2014, https://www.businessinsider.com/china-has-shifted-tactics-in

-senkaku-islands-2014-10.

18. According to Japan Coast Guard, in 2015 there were a total of 99 Chinese boats incursions 

into Japanese-claimed waters around the Senkakus, which only increased by mid-2016 to 135 

occupying 70 percent of total fishing areas in the whole East China Sea: http://www.upi.com

/Top_News/World-News/2016/10/10/Report-Japan-to-deploy-enhanced-patrol-boats-to

-deter-Chinese-vessels/9331476124548/.

19. Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, Mischief Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef, 

and Hughes Reef.

20. Amanda Macias, “Japan’s Coast Guard Released a Video Showing Hundreds of Chinese 

Fishing Ships near a Disputed Island Chain,” Business Insider Australia, 17 August 2016, https://

www.businessinsider.com.au/chinese-fishing-ships-near-senkaku-islands-2016-8?r=US&IR=T.

21. “Overview of China Ocean Governance,” Center for American Progress, May 2018, https://

cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2018/05/18120801/BlueFuture-Appendix2-5.pdf.

22. Andrew Erickson and Connor M. Kennedy, “China’s Fishing Militia Is a Military Force in 

All But Name,” War is Boring, 9 July 2016, https://warisboring.com/chinas-fishing-militia-is-a

-military-force-in-all-but-name/. According to Erickson and Kennedy, the maritime militia, disguised as local fishermen, has been the main protagonist of incidents in the South China Sea in 

1974 at the Paracels, the 2009 harassment of the USNS Impeccable, 2011 incidents of two Vietnamese hydrographic vessels, the 2012 Scarborough Shoal incident against the Philippines, and 

the 981 oil rig incident against Vietnamese vessels in 2014.

23. Ryan D. Martinson, “Deciphering China’s Armed Intrusion near the Senkaku Islands,” 

Diplomat, 11 January 2016, https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/deciphering-chinas-armed-intrusion

-near-the-senkaku/.

24. Ryan Pickrell, “China Sent A ‘Monster’ Ship to Roam the South China Sea,” National Interest, 11 May 2017, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-sent-monster-ship-roam

-the-south-china-sea-20608. These massive 12,000-ton ships are reportedly armed with one 

76-mm cannon and anti-aircraft guns.

25. “Enforcement Powers of China Coast Guard Expanded,” China Daily, 23 June 2018, 

http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-06/23/content_8069130.htm.

26. The People’s Armed Police itself was placed under a unified control of the Communist 

Party of China Central Committee and Central Military Commission as of January 2018.

27. Ian Storey, “US Conducts 6th South China Sea FONOP under Trump,” ISEAS Yusof Ishak 

Institute, 27 March 2018, https://iseas.edu.sg/medias/commentaries/item/7200-us-conducts-6th

-south-china-sea-fonop-under-trump-by-ian-storey.
The China Coast Guard

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 57

28. Eleanor Freund and Andrew Facini, “Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A 

Practical Guide,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 

2017, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-practical-guide.

29. Mark Valencia, “The Quad and the South China Sea,” IPP Review, 5 December 2017, 

https://ippreview.com/index.php/Blog/single/id/604.html. France and the United Kingdom have 

announced their intention to hold their own FONOPs

30. Duncan DeAeth, “Congress Approves 2019 NDAA Bill Heralding Closer Taiwan-US 

Defense Ties,” Taiwan News, 24 July 2018, https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3489810.

31. Ulises Granados, “The US factor in China’s Dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku 

Islands”, in China’s Strategic Priorities, ed. Jonathan H. Ping and Brett McCormick (London: 

Routledge, 2016), 87.

32. “Defense Chief Criticizes China over Submarine near Senkakus,” Asahi Shimbun, 15 

January 2018, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201801150042.html.

33. Jacob J, “East China Sea: Japan Bolsters Military near Disputed Senkaku Islands,” International Business Times, 1 February 2016, http://www.ibtimes.sg/east-china-sea-japan-bolsters-military

-near-disputed-senkaku-islands-115.

34. “Japan Deploys 12 Coast Guard Ships to Patrol Disputed Diaoyu Islands,” South China 

Morning Post, 4 April 2016, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/diplomacy/article/1933502/japan

-deploys-12-coast-guard-ships-patrol-disputed-diaoyu.

35. Justin McCurry, “Japan Defence Ministry Seeks Record Budget to Counter Chinese Threat,” 

Guardian, 31 August 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/japan-defence

-ministry-record-budget-counter-chinese-north-korea-nuclear-threat.

36. Ngo Minh Tri, “Warships Are Gathering in the South China Sea,” News Lens, 4 April 

2018, https://international.thenewslens.com/article/93002.

37. “Japan to Bolster Coast Guard Patrols near Disputed Senkaku Islands,” Japan Times, 14 

April 2018, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/14/national/japan-bolster-coast-guard

-patrols-near-disputed-senkaku-islands/#.W13I69VKipo.

38. “Chinese Vessels Intrude into Japanese Waters around Senkakus”, Mainichi, 4 July 2018, 

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180704/p2g/00m/0dm/081000c.

39. Christian V. Esguerra, “Philippines Gets $157-M Loan from Japan for Patrol Ships,” ABSCBN News, 27 October 2016, http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/27/16/philippines-gets-157-m

-loan-from-japan-for-patrol-ships.

40. “Philippine Defense Chief says China Sea Dispute Still a Challenge,” Reuters, 26 March 

2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-defence-japan/philippine-defense-chief-says

-china-sea-dispute-still-a-challenge-idUSKBN1H20JJ.

41. Ulises Granados, “India’s Approaches to the South China Sea: Priorities and Balances,” 

Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 5, no. 1 (2018), 128.

42. Nobuhiro Kubo, “Exclusive: Japanese Helicopter Carrier to Tour South China Sea, Indian 

Ocean for Two Months,” Reuters, 3 July 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence

-southchinasea-exclusive/exclusive-japanese-helicopter-carrier-to-tour-south-china-sea-indian

-ocean-for-two-months-idUSKBN1JU0CJ.

43. “Japan Gives Malaysia Two Patrol Boats,” Reuters, 16 November 2016, https://www.reuters

.com/article/us-japan-malaysia-idUSKBN13B0X4.

44. “Malaysia, Japan Agree to Keep Melaka Strait, South China Sea Open for Navigation,” 

New Straits Times, 12 June 2018, https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2018/06/379192/malaysia

-japan-agree-keep-melaka-strait-south-china-sea-open-navigation.
58 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Granados

45. “Japan to Help Develop Indonesian Islands in South China Sea,” South China Morning 

Post, 25 June 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2152361/japan-help

-develop-indonesian-islands-south-china-sea.

46. Sanjeev Miglani, “India Says in Talks with Vietnam for First Missile Sale,” Reuters, 15 

February 2017, http://in.reuters.com/article/airshow-india-vietnam-idINKBN15U0Y2.

47. “India, Vietnam Emphasise Freedom of Navigation in South China Sea,” Economic Times, 

4 March 2018, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-vietnam-emphasise

-freedom-of-navigation-in-south-china-sea/articleshow/63158850.cms.

48. Dhruva Jaishankar, “The South China Sea Arbitration Ruling, and Why It Matters to India,” 

Brookings, 13 July 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-south-china-sea-arbitration

-ruling-and-why-it-matters-to-india/.

49. Matthew Wilson, 2017 Australian Foreign Policy White Paper (Canberra: Australian Government, 2017), p. 6, https://www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3551/f/submission/170209

-149-matthew-wilson.pdf.

50. Jaime Laude, “Philippine Navy Gets 3 More Landing Ships from Australia,” Philippine Star, 

28 March 2016, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/03/28/1567208/eSJp32XJDq1uASA2.99.

51. Charis Chang, “Chinese Newspaper Publishes ‘Disturbing’ Warning to Australia over 

South China Sea Dispute,” News.com.au, 3 January 2018, https://www.news.com.au/finance

/work/leaders/chinese-newspaper-publishes-disturbing-warning-to-australia-over-south-china

-sea-dispute/news-story/32b418a040c706b1cd84138ec0d276ab.

52. Andrew Greene, “Australian Warships Challenged by Chinese Military in South China Sea,” 

ABC News, 20 April 2018, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/south-china-sea-australian

-warships-challenged-by-chinese/9677908.

53. Li Mingjiang and Zhang Hongzhou, “Restructuring China’s Maritime Law Enforcement: 

Impact on Regional Security,” RSIS Commentaries No. 050/2013, 1 April 2013, 2.

54. Ronald O’Rourke, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—

Background and Issues for Congress (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 31 May 2016), 35.

55. National Institute for Defense Studies, East Asian Strategic Review 2018 (Tokyo: National 

Institute for Defense Studies, 2018), 28.

56. “Global Conflict Tracker: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea; Recent Developments,” Council of Foreign Relations, 24 July 2018, https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict

-tracker/?category=us

57. “Beijing Launches Live-Fire Drill to ‘Test Combat Strength against Taiwan’,” South China 

Morning Post, 19 July 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article

/2155868/beijing-launches-live-fire-drill-test-combat-strength.

58. Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Steven Lee Myers, “China Won’t Yield ‘Even One Inch’ of 

South China Sea, Xi Tells Mattis,” New York Times, 27 June 2018, https://www.nytimes

.com/2018/06/27/world/asia/mattis-xi-china-sea.html.

59. Lee YingHui, “A South China Sea Code of Conduct: Is Real Progress Possible?,” Diplomat, 18 November 2017, https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/a-south-china-sea-code-of-conduct

-is-real-progress-possible/.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 59

FEATURE

Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on 

the Belt and Road*

R. James Ferguson

Abstract

Nontraditional security (NTS) cooperation has been seen as a ready focus for 

multilateral dialogue, soft-power enhancement, and positive military diplomacy 

in the Indo-Pacific. Some actors have responded to NTS threats by embracing 

various approaches including “military operations other than war” (MOOTW), 

as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) interventions. 

These responses are also testing grounds for military capacity, indicating power 

projection and forward deployment abilities. NTS operational capacities can become part of a spiraling security dilemma that undercuts the claimed benefits for 

military diplomacy and cooperative security approaches. Growing Chinese and 

Japanese NTS capacities and are now part of a wider Indo-Pacific dynamic along 

the Maritime Silk Road (MSR). China’s need to provide for NTS along the Belt 

and Road includes the expanded use of private security companies, “paramilitary” 

maritime deployments, and PLA units. NTS threats, including the calibrated use 

of armed force, are now important components within Chinese defense and foreign policy. Japan sees these capacities as part of its wider contribution toward 

“proactive peace” and security through development in the Indo-Pacific region, 

but Tokyo is also aware of its role in boosting Japan’s soft power. NTS dilemmas 

intensify during acquisition of dual-use assets and when traditional security competition already exists, e.g., threat perceptions of Chinese military assertiveness. 

Carefully managed, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents an invitation 

for security cooperation. However, it also risks new forms of military competition 

and increasing securitization of developmental and environmental issues, a wellknown problem for NTS as a conceptual and operational category.

*This article is an updated version of an earlier paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference 

of the International Studies Association (ISA) Narratives of Security in Asian Geopolitics, 3–6 July 2019, 

Singapore. I would like to thank the chair, the respondent, and fellow panelists for their useful feedback.
60 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

Introduction: Where Security Cooperation and Military 

Competition Meet

Many have seen NTS cooperation as a ready focus for multilateral and multilevel dialogue, soft-power enhancement, and positive military diplomacy in the 

Indo-Pacific region.1 Actors have responded to NTS threats militarily by embracing approaches such as MOOTW, HADR interventions, as well as post-disaster 

recovery and stabilization operations. Indeed, military forces have a long history 

of emergency relief, logistical support, initial reconstruction roles, and even nation 

building, usually after the end of a military conflict or multilateral interventions, 

e.g., experiences at the end of World War II, reconstruction roles in the former 

Yugoslavia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq.2 However, recent NTS operations 

are also a testing ground for showcasing military capacity, including intelligence 

and logistic operations that support power projection and forward deployment 

abilities. Chinese, Japanese and Indian doctrines and operations have increasingly 

featured NTS elements over the last two decades, e.g., via antipiracy operations, 

UN support operations, and international HADR deployments in reaction to 

natural disasters. In part, the desire by such states to be seen as “net security providers” rather than security threats has driven this trend.3

 Actors also use such 

operations as an avenue for low-risk bilateral and multilateral cooperation, serving as confidence and trust building measures.4

 In turn, observations of HADR 

and MOOTW operations also provide competing states with information on the 

strengths and weakness of the state engaging in these activities, a form of “secret 

reconnaissance,” which was of particular concern to China in its antipiracy deployments from 2008 on.5

In general, NTS concerns go beyond the defense of the state to a wider assessment of risks to the population as a whole and their extraterritorial national interests.6

 Such transnational security threats provide motives for great power cooperation but also generate divergent, even clashing, views of how such issues should 

be resolved.7 Wider NTS challenges, such as resource depletion and climate 

change, have driven decades of diplomacy via the United Nations (UN) and 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, while transnational 

organized crime, illicit goods, and money laundering have increasingly engaged 

global and regional organizations, e.g., via the United Nations Office on Drugs 

and Crime, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and related 

groups such the ASEAN Defense Minister’s Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN 

Defense Minister’s Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus).8 Likewise, across the IndoPacific, diverse groupings use HADR operations as a focus of, or means toward, 

maritime cooperation. Such cooperation is a central component of the ASEAN 
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 61

Regional Forum (ARF) and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) agendas.9

 This collaboration is a priority area for the Indian Ocean Rim Association 

(IORA) Action Plan for 2017–2021 (being developed via the organization’s 

“Cluster Group” on Disaster Risk Management) and the France-Australia-NZ 

(FRANZ) maritime cooperation agreements. Disaster relief is also a component 

in numerous multilateral naval exercises such as the MILAN and KOMODO 

exercises. In so far as NTS issues are seen as soft security issues, policy makers 

often treat them as “low-hanging fruit” where cooperation can readily be used as 

confidence and trust-building measures (CTBM) among the parties involved.10

However, NTS operational capacities can also become part of a spiraling security dilemma that undercuts the claimed benefits for military diplomacy and cooperative security approaches.11 Cycles of capacity building have already been 

observed in Chinese and Japanese NTS operations and are now part of a wider 

Indian Ocean dynamic along the MSR. This can be seen in China’s participation 

in antipiracy operations in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of Somalia, an early 

indication of Beijing’s ability to maintain small naval task forces operating at a 

long distance from their bases, though their rules of engagement were rather limited and conservative.12 Though often relatively small (usually two combatants 

and a supply ship), China, between 2008 and 2018, sent a total of 30 task forces 

as part of wider antipiracy operations, escorted over 5,900 ships in the western 

Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden by 2017 and sent vessels to evacuate Chinese and 

other foreign nationals from the conflicts in Libya and Yemen.13 These operations 

are pretexted on humanitarian grounds, protecting sea lines of communication 

(SLOC) and cargo shipping, which now includes sizable numbers of Chinese 

cargoes and China’s growing merchant marine fleet. Though such operations do 

provide shared regional security and economic benefits, one can also view these 

operations as “impure public goods” in that they differentially serve other ends 

such as power projection and enhanced diplomatic influence.14 Moreover, these 

trends have created considerable concern from Indian and Australian observers, 

who see this as a wider pattern of maritime power projection, especially when 

combined with threat perceptions based on the so-called “String of Pearls” and 

MSR investments, which give the People’s Republic of China (PRC) increased 

access to ports and fueling points across the Indian Ocean.15

Japan, too, has deployed limited maritime forces beyond East Asia into the 

wider Indo-Pacific, though usually as part of multilateral or UN-mandated operations. This included sending ships into the Persian Gulf for controversial 

minesweeping roles in 1991, with further supply missions into the Indian Ocean 

through 2001–2010 in support of US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well 

as support for regional coast guard training and other initiatives via its dialogue 
62 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

with ASEAN. This was an extension of Japan’s “normalization” via cautious multilateral and humanitarian support roles, e.g., medical teams in Cambodia (1992–

1993); disaster and relief teams to Indonesia, Thailand, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and 

Thailand (2004–2005); reconstruction and engineering teams in Iraq and East 

Timor; as well as early disaster relief teams in western India (2001), Pakistan 

(2005) and New Zealand (2011), among others.16 In the wider context of Japanese Self Defense Force ( JSDF) modernization, this can be seen as a form of 

“proactive pacifism” that allows for overseas operations that actively support global 

peace. Thereafter, Japan gradually engaged an extended pattern of defense mobilization in relation to “gray areas,” ranging from antipiracy operations to air and 

naval deployments in the East China Sea, checking China’s claims to the Senkaku 

(Diaoyu) Islands and adjacent exclusive economic zones (EEZ).17

In this context, Japan from 2011 has maintained a logistics base with a port and 

airfield in Djibouti, backed up by a small number of ground troops. Japan’s national 

defense guidelines from 2018 noted that beyond antipiracy efforts, the JSDF facility will help Japan cooperate in the long-term quest for “regional security.”18 China 

opened its own logistics base in Djibouti in 2017, while the United States, France, 

Germany, Italy, and Spain also have bases in the county, with Saudi Arabia signing 

agreements for the possible future development of a facility.19 In some measure, 

these early Japanese and Chinese efforts could be seen as mutual shadowing and 

matching of extended deployment capacities, at least in the Indian Ocean, followed by a more direct form of strategic confrontation in the East China Sea.20

(US Air Force photo by SrA Gabrielle Spalding)

Figure 1. Japanese-led field training exercise. US Army 1LT Nicholas Sereday, executive 

officer for Charlie Company 2-113th Infantry assigned to Combined Joint Task Force-Horn 

of Africa, gives a concept of operations brief to Japanese and US military forces during a 

bilateral field training exercise in Djibouti, Africa, 2 October 2019. The exercise was part of 

a Japanese-led noncombatant evacuation operation exercise, which also included African 

coalition partners.
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 63

NTS is not an uncontested category. Indeed, it is defined by what it is not, i.e., 

it is not traditional security, with its focus on interstate conflict, direct national 

defense, or waging conventional wars. A long list of “other” issues then get dropped 

into this NTS category, especially if they are transnational in character, originate 

from nonmilitary actors/factors, and are not easily dealt with by the direct application of military force, e.g., climate change risks, environmental and natural disasters, flows of illicit goods, nondocumented migration, transnational criminal 

networks, and food and water security.21 Debates have continued since the 1990s 

(following on from the Copenhagen School’s work) on how these issues have 

been framed by national narratives and social discourses that prioritize specific 

nonmilitary challenges as “threats.”22 Likewise, such securitizations may mask 

competing rather than cooperative extensions of governance beyond state borders, 

using “risk” to mobilize domestic and regional responses.23

Resource scarcity is an area where these mechanisms can be easily seen, e.g., the 

extension of concern over fisheries depletion in Southeast Asia has moved from 

national monitoring of EEZs toward a wider conceptualization of fisheries management across the South China Sea and the Coral Triangle. This can be seen as 

a legitimate extension of scientific approaches, allowing a shift toward sustainable 

use of shared fisheries, especially for offshore fish species that move across EEZs 

and open sea boundaries.24 If successful, this approach could act as one CTBM to 

expand trust among regional states, a methodology explored via groups such as 

ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP). However, such trends could also intensify 

territorial claims via securitized monitoring of transnational fisheries under national resource rubrics and threat perceptions, e.g., as found in Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Chinese responses to “illegal” fishing in recent years.25

Further, adopting an NTS agenda will not always lead to automatic cooperation in dealing with harder traditional security issues pretexted on issues of sovereignty and territorial control. This can be seen in ASEAN contexts, where NTS 

responses have been a way of enhancing regional security cooperation but have 

only slowly moved from CTBMs toward preventive diplomacy, with little ability 

to address China’s territorial claims or reduce tensions between the United States 

and China.26 In this context, ASEAN has made serious progress in regional coordination for disaster risks governance since the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster 

Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) in 2008 and the creation of 

the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (AHA). However, other NTS responses are more problematic, e.g., the problems of Southeast 

Asian air pollution (the Haze) driven by forest fires in Indonesia, have induced 
64 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

serious attention from ASEAN mechanisms27 since 1997, but the process remains 

controversial and incomplete.28

Japanese and Chinese NTS agendas are often used as part of wider soft-power 

responses designed to enhance national prestige and expand international influence in the Indo-Pacific. In turn, this may help legitimate Chinese interests and 

presence along the MSR, as well as providing one platform for focused Japanese 

activism in the Indo-Pacific under the so-called “Abe Doctrine.”29 Indeed, Chinese 

responses to NTS threats can be seen as a corollary of Beijing’s expanding global 

interests along the BRI and its numerous corridors. In the Indo-Pacific, the expansion of Chinese interests, presence, and comprehensive capacities has led to tensions with other states (especially Japan and India) and concern expressed in regional organizations such as ASEAN, the IONS, and the IORA. China is a 

dialogue partner to IORA and only became an observer to IONS from 2015 onward. There is no simple remedy for these problems during a period of geopolitical 

tension, driven mainly by clashing US, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese strategic 

preoccupations. However, a strong commitment to transparent, “permissive” operations directed toward shared and agreed problems may reduce trends toward competitive power projection as a form of strategic preemption (see further below).

The next section of this article will explore NTS operations in the context of 

Japanese and Chinese soft-power agendas. This will be followed by a brief analysis 

of Chinese responses to NTS threats as part of Beijing’s expanding global interests, channeled through its expanding BRI agreements. The BRI opens up geoeconomic corridors where China’s security concerns are intensified, even if these 

do not directly engage the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) itself. Beijing still 

mainly relies on local armed forces to protect Chinese investments, backed up in 

part by small amounts of military aid and a limited number of naval exercises and 

more regular Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) peace missions.30

However, there are now increased pressures to acquire the “capacity to respond,” 

whether through upgraded military assets, expanded coast guards, special police 

units, militias, or private security corporations (PSC). The final section of this 

article will explore partial remedies to these problems. Such solutions rest on two 

approaches: where joint military capabilities are required they should function 

through UN, regional, or multilateral institutions, and where force is not required, 

there should be a rapid shift toward demilitarization, with civilian agencies taking 

up governance roles. When worked in conjunction, these two approaches can reduce the likelihood of NTS dilemmas being sustained, thereby undercutting the 

negative construction of shared NTS problems as interstate threats.
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 65

Japanese and Chinese NTS Responses as Soft-Power Enhancers

Both Japan and China use NTS responses, humanitarian missions, emergency 

aid, and developmental funding in support of national soft power, encouraging 

positive and friendly responses by partner nations and reducing past and present 

threat perceptions.31 Although, soft-power gains need not be seen as a part of a 

zero-sum game, competitive approaches to soft power are more likely when there 

already exist unresolved territorial disputes and where military modernization or 

existing power differentials have complicated security dilemmas. This is the case 

with the expansion of China’s military capacities and the rise of its comprehensive 

national power, now projected more widely onto the Indo-Pacific stage via the security footprint of the BRI (see further below).32 Direct military competition by the 

PRC with the US and India in their respective spheres of influence in the Pacific 

and Indian Oceans has intensified this security dilemma, as have concerns over the 

geopolitical impact of China’s comprehensive growth in national power, now closing in on US primacy as the second overall superpower in the Indo-Pacific.33

Over the last three decades, Japanese foreign policy and security trends have 

emerged as a wider pattern of multilateral cooperation that can be summarized as 

“soft power through development.” This was an extension of Japan’s twenty-firstcentury focus on economic influence and civilian power, combined with limited 

but robust self-defense capacities. Tokyo updated this focus with Japan’s Revised 

Aid Cooperation concept (February 2015) of “good” development as the best proactive contribution to peace, utilizing soft power, aid, and trade along with some 

hard-power capacities.34 This approach combined shared “universal” values and 

actively promoted international peace and stability at the regional and global levels. Although linked to the rubric of a “free-and-open Indo-Pacific” from 2016, 

this was far less assertive that the US interpretation of the concept,35 focusing 

instead on cooperative mechanisms with diverse partners. Japan’s governance focus enhanced strategic development cooperation for economic growth, promoted 

human security, and sought to build strategic partnerships with small or island 

states with “particular” vulnerabilities, operating across 18 subareas.36

This agenda included strong commitments on disaster relief and climate change, 

whereby Japan would provide assistance in disaster risk reduction and environmental/climate change management for small island developing states (SIDS). 

This links to Japan’s ongoing role as a major developmental aid donor, circa fourth 

in the world overall in 2017 with increases of around 3 percent for official development assistance in 2019 over 2018.37 Overall around 10 billion USD annually has 

been channeled into aid flows with a focus on poverty reduction and infrastructure 

development. Japan is also a major supporter of the Asian Development Bank 
66 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

(ADB), as both a founding member and major shareholder in that organization (as 

of late 2018 Japan and the United States each held 15.6 percent of total shares).

Beyond financial aid, Japan’s Official Development Assistance Charter (revised in 

2004) and its updated Development Cooperation Charter (2015) support JSDF 

noncombat roles for disaster relief and coast guard operations, as well as cooperation with ASEAN on naval patrols and protection of sea lanes.38 It was recognized 

that there was a clear link between security and the ability to sustain socioeconomic development:

In natural disasters and other emergencies, Japan will provide prompt assistance 

taking into account longer-term recovery and reconstruction. In view of the fact 

that threats to stability and security can hamper socio-economic development, 

Japan will also provide assistance to enhance capacities in developing countries 

such as: the capacity of law enforcement authorities including capabilities to 

ensure maritime safety; the capacity of security authorities including capabilities 

to combat terrorism and transnational organized crime including drug trafficking and trafficking in persons; and the capacity of developing countries in relation to global commons such as seas, outer space, and cyberspace.39

Japan has long been active in global human security and sustainable development networks, with these agenda now part of soft power positioned within the 

idea of proactive pacifism, i.e., the idea of making a sustainable “proactive contribution to peace.” Development is thus seen as a way to aid global security, as a means 

to reduce transnational terrorism, and as a tactic for improving environmental 

outcomes and health security. This aid is not just focused on Asia. Japan has also 

pledged circa 30 billion USD (private and public) to help stabilize key zones 

across Africa through 2013–2019, allowing improved resource access and also 

serving as part of soft competition with the PRC.40 This was based in part on the 

Yokohama Action Plan of 2013–2017, with targeted agriculture and health programs to Kenya, Morocco, Malawi, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, and elsewhere.41 Japan has developed a regional plan for development within Africa, with subregional 

plans engaging a human security focus since 2015.42 More recently, Japan has 

partnered with India in an Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, seen by some as an 

unofficial counter to China’s BRI operations in Africa and the Indian Ocean.43

Of course, Japan’s recent policies go beyond soft power and NTS responses into 

a more robust posture via the so-called Abe Doctrine and the use of the concepts 

of dynamic defense and gray-zone engagements.

44 Dynamic deterrence allows for 

counterstrike based on an integrated air warning and an improved defense control 

system within Japan, as well as some further southward positioning of JSDF assets. 

Beyond this, the policy supports selective deployments of Japanese forces overseas 

and permits overseas combat in defense of a friendly country or forces being at-
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 67

tacked.45 Likewise, Japan’s national defense guidelines from 2010 on allow stronger 

deterrence in dealing with diffuse threats that are less than armed attacks. Gray 

zones include “a broad range of contingencies that fall between peace and war—for 

example, disputes over territory, sovereignty or economic interests. Grey-zone contingencies typically involve a government decision to show a military presence or 

to attempt to change the status quo using physical means.”46 This situation can be 

applied to the tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, where deployments of 

naval and air patrols occur on a regular basis, signaling rising military tensions 

between Japan and China, even if neither intends to escalate this situation into a 

direct military clash. With overlapping air defense identification zones and important resources such as the Chunxiao gas field at stake, it is not surprising that both 

countries have sought to stake a strong presence. From 2010 to 2015, the number 

of scrambles by JSDF interceptors against Chinese aircraft rose rapidly.47 By 2016, 

the total Japanese interceptor scrambles peaked at 1,168, while in 2018 Japanese 

aircraft scrambled 999 times in response to Chinese and Russian aircraft, indicating a situation that was not war but certainly not peace either.48 Bearing in mind 

that overall Japan is ranked around 9th–10th globally in its diverse military capabilities, this is a serious deployment of hard power that needs to be assessed in the 

wider strategic balance of the Indo-Pacific.49

Gradual revisions of the interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution 

have allowed Japan a more active role across the Indo-Pacific region, including 

potential deployment of naval missile defense systems and advanced attack submarines, use of military satellites (after adoption of the Basic Space Law from 

2008), enhanced cyber security, and stronger maritime cooperation with Indonesia and India.50 However, it seems unlikely that Prime Minister Shinzō Abe will 

be able to actually revise the text (versus the interpretation) of Article 9 of the 

Japanese constitution by 2020. Doing so would need two-thirds support in parliament, a referendum, and stronger political support publicly: as of 2017, 46 percent 

of Japanese surveyed were against this, and through 2018–2019 there was limited 

support from coalition partners and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) for 

these revised policies.51 Here there is some trade-off between soft power and more 

assertive strategies. Even though Japan can be seen as gaining soft power globally, 

rising from seventh in global ranks in 2016 to around fifth in 2018 in the Portland 

Soft Power surveys, this was still limited by negative perceptions in China and 

South Korea, with Abe’s doctrine eroding soft-power influence due to displays of 

military capability. Japan’s rating with the Soft Power 30 is largely based on cultural and technical factors, combined with extensive diplomatic, development, 

and aid programs, plus regional leadership on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (now 
68 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

relabeled the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) after the United States withdrew from the original agreement.52

China, too, has long been aware of the growing reality of NTS threats and more 

recently has been willing to enter into international agreements to help collectively manage them.53 Drug control, for example, has been a long-term focus of 

modern China, which saw itself as a victim of ruthless exploitation of the opium 

trade from the nineteenth century onward, with continued twenty-first-century 

flows from Myanmar and Afghanistan presenting current challenges.54 These 

concerns have continued to shape the PRC’s NTS relations with Southeast Asia. 

China entered into cooperative mechanisms to cope with transnational organized 

crime (from 2000) and signed the Joint Declaration on Cooperation in the Field of 

Non-traditional Security Issues with ASEAN in 2002, recognizing that a wide 

range of transborder issues needed pan-Asian cooperation, especially with neighboring states and groupings such as ASEAN, the ARF, and the SCO.55 This has 

been folded into a combined military and diplomacy approach as part of China’s 

emerging “new security concept” from 2002 onward:

The complex relationship between nontraditional security and China’s national 

security and foreign policy is reflected in Jiang Zeming’s words during the 16th 

National Congress of the CCP in 2002. He stressed that traditional and nontraditional security threats, especially terrorism, are interwoven and are having 

disruptive effects over the stable international environment that China needs for 

its own development. Consequently, the solution was to make the NSC operational through multilateral dialogues, such as the UN and other international 

organizations. . . . In summary, non-traditional security issues were not seen as 

threats to China’s existence, but to the external environment it needed to develop. 

Consistently, the response advocated by the Chinese leaders is diplomatic in nature even if it has a limited military component. These were the very early stages 

of the securitization process.56

Subsequently, NTS issues and protecting Chinese interests abroad have been 

given growing prominence in China’s defense white papers and, since 2006, led to 

a strong emphasis on MOOTW as a crucial part of PLA missions, training, logistics, and research, including expanded peacekeeping operations.57 It is important not to read this trend as “military operations short of war” along a spectrum 

using different levels of force but rather as a spectrum of diplomatic engagement 

that ranges from peacekeeping through to public dissemination of information. 

This can be broadly described as the public diplomacy of China combined with 

the “political work” within the PLA and other state agencies.58 The PLA began to 

evolve conceptual, doctrinal, educational, and operational bases for the response 

to domestic and international emergencies, developed first with the Academy of 
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 69

Military Science (AMS), the National Defense University (NDU), the Army 

Command College (ACC), and other PLA teaching centers and within the 

Emergency Office of General Staff Development (GSD).59 In parallel, the PLA 

and police units became more involved in “on-call peace arrangements” with the 

UN, eventually deploying over 30,000 personnel to 24 UN missions through 

1997–2018, as well as creating a Peacekeeping Center in the Ministry of National 

Defense.60 From late 2017, China registered 8,000 troops for the peacekeeping 

standby force of the UN, with 800 being made available for rapid deployment via 

the UN “Vanguard Brigade.”61

Diverse conceptualizations of MOOTW operations include different aspects 

of “deterrence, counter-terrorism, riot suppression, mass event management, border blockade, disaster rescue and relief, nuclear, biological and chemical rescue 

and relief, air and sea security, air and sea control, protection of maritime strategic 

communication lines, international peace-keeping, and overseas rescue and 

relief.”62 It is important to note what is excluded from MOOTW operations as 

well. The US military discontinued the term in 2006 but originally had 18 types 

of operations, including items not found in Chinese thinking such as “arms control and disarmament, enforcement of sanctions, enforcing exclusion zones, support for insurgencies, counterinsurgency, strikes and raids.”63 Overall, China’s 

MOOTW principles are closely aligned to the noninterventionist stance of PRC’s 

foreign policy principles, with restrictions on intervention, enforcement, or targeted strikes against other countries. However, as Chinese interests via trade and 

geopolitical competition have moved from a regional to a global agenda, China’s 

security policies have had to move well beyond the framework of territorial defense and sovereignty claims. Rather, the PLA’s “new” mandated missions have a 

wide brief in protecting Chinese interests on the global stage, even if largely pursued by cooperative rather than by coercive means.64 Although formally aligned 

with UN goals, such operations have a primary focus on China’s expanding economic and geopolitical interests.65

These humanitarian operations have earned Beijing some credibility as an international actor able to respond to emergencies overseas. Thus, China has been 

engaged in seeking the protection or withdrawal of Chinese nationals during 

crises (natural and political) in the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Lebanon, Chad, Thailand, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Sudan, the Gulf of Aden, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya (where over 36,000 Chinese citizens evacuated), Yemen, 

Japan, and Mali.66 At first these were small, nonmilitary operations but, from 

2011 on, began to include PLA support groups, aircraft, and PLA Navy (PLAN) 

ships, especially for major crises.67 These figures reflect the growing number of 

Chinese people going overseas, including government officials, business persons, 
70 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

contractors, tourists, students, engineers, workers, and potentially even farmers (as 

part of China’s food security agenda).68 China has about 30–40,000 businesses 

operating globally, and over 100 million Chinese travel abroad annually, sometimes to fragile or conflict-prone states.69 This provides a direct and serious rationale for China’s widening engagement in regional and global security processes. 

The situation has prompted the creation of a Department of External Security 

and a Small Group for Coordination on External Emergencies and created the 

demand for increased risk assessment capacities. This expanded circle of interests 

and capabilities have become embedded in the “holistic national security” (HNS) 

concept that was endorsed by Pres. Xi Jinping and the Central National Security 

Commission from 2015 on.70

Support for MOOTW, sea-lane security, antipiracy, and peacekeeping operations was the rational for the creation of a logistic support base and supply port at 

Djibouti in 2015. This support was also used to justify the building of infrastructure (including airstrips) on some of the islands in the South China Sea and for 

future improved access to Gwadar and nearby Jiwani in Pakistan; Bagamoyo, 

Tanzania; and other ports across the Indo-Pacific.71 Likewise, the Chinese have 

been involved in responding to international emergencies and disasters, e.g., in 

October 2005, the China International Search and Rescue Team arrived at the 

earthquake struck Balakot area in Pakistan, bringing with them a team of 49 

earthquake experts, PLA engineers, and PAP (People’s Armed Police) medical 

workers.72 In 2014, medical teams deployed to Haiti and to several West African 

countries fighting Ebola.73 Since 2013, China has been involved in HADR operations in Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, sending international 

rescue teams, medical teams, and a DNA testing group to the tsunami-hit countries, including deployment of its hospital ship Daishan Dao ( also known as Peace 

Ark). From March 2014, China also deployed almost 20 PLAN and Coast Guard 

ships as well as air assets to search for the missing Malaysian Airline Flight 370, 

working with some 26 countries, including India.74

China has historically been subject to major natural disasters, including floods 

and earthquakes that affect densely populated areas, leading to major reforms of 

its disaster risk reduction (DDR) strategies since 2008 and a willingness to cooperate internationally with the Sendai Framework (for disaster risk reduction). 

China also has ongoing trilateral dialogues with Japan and South Korea on these 

and related environmental issues (the Tripartite Environmental Ministers Meeting, TEMM, operating from 1999 on), agreements with ASEAN on disaster 

management cooperation (from 2014), plus limited “small-team” medical cooperation with the United States from 2013.75
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 71

The PRC understands well the soft-power benefits and public diplomacy aspects of HADR responses:

It is common for MOOTW to come under public scrutiny. Positive media coverage about PLA MOOTW, thus, not only boosts morale but also inspires personnel to carry out their tasks well. Prompt dissemination and exchange of information is recommended to enhance troops’ capacity; while timely news conferences 

are encouraged to promote situational awareness among the public, with comprehensive media coverage also employed to showcase PLA work style.76

Overall, China’s increased engagement in UN operations has been seen as 

supporting “system stability” in a world it describes as fraught by risk, hot spots, 

and increasing tension with the United States.77 At the same time Beijing has 

rejected efforts to restrict China’s access and use of the East and South China 

seas and responded to criticism of its BRI by seeking to address excessive debt, 

energy, and environmental issues that concern states such as Australia, India, and 

Japan (the “green development” agenda and BRI 2.0).78 Another controversial 

area will be how far China needs to mobilize extra forms of security for its BRI 

economic corridors.

The Expanding Security Needs of the Belt and Road

China’s increased need to provide for NTS along the Belt and Road includes 

the expanded use of PSCs, paramilitary maritime deployments of coast guard and 

other marine units, and the PLA’s mandated new missions to protect Chinese 

interests and citizens beyond national borders. Indeed, the PRC is transforming 

operations toward a stronger and comprehensive maritime focus:

Today, modern China is at the turning point of becoming a truly maritimecapable nation in terms of the emerging capacities of the PLA Navy (PLAN), its 

development as a leading shipbuilder, its growing merchant marine, its interest in 

seabed mining for resources, and its huge fishing fleet (the world’s largest for 

distance fishing). China is developing a comprehensive approach to its evolving 

maritime strategy, including a focus on oceanic resource management as well as 

security and legal issues. Several agencies other than PLAN are involved in this 

process including the Maritime Safety Administration (MSA), the Coast Guard 

of the Border Control Department, the China Maritime Police, the China Marine Surveillance (CMS), Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC), and 

Maritime Anti-smuggling Bureau.79

Overall, China is increasingly engaged in the West and South Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and most recently the Arctic, now added as an “Ice Road” to the 

BRI.80 Along the diverse corridors of the BRI, NTS threats and their manage-
72 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

ment are now important components within Chinese defense and foreign policy. 

Such operations have allowed China to build up its operational capacity to support peacekeeping and other roles in Africa and the Indian Ocean. In operations 

in Africa (including South Sudan, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of Congo), 

China has sent not only engineers and medical teams but well-armed and trained 

soldiers, with these units being given similar training to PLA special forces.81

These factors have led to an increasingly securitized approach that embraces the 

calibrated use of force combined with a civil-military responsiveness:

The fact that the PLA became the main protagonist of this process after an initial 

civilian response, from showing the flag in support of China’s international 

standing, to more concrete actions to defend the country’s interests and citizens 

abroad, shows how powerful the process of securitization has been. Ultimately, 

this process not only led to growing military activities abroad and the creation of 

the relevant institutional–legal framework, but it also caused a broader reconsideration about the use of force in foreign policy.82

The United States, India, Australia, and Japan have observed these trends with 

concern. NTS dilemmas are likely to intensify over acquisition of dual-use assets, 

e.g., landing-craft, helicopters, helicopter-carriers, heavy-lift transport aircraft, 

mobile hospitals, expanded intelligence gathering via new satellites, and, in the 

future, transnational social monitoring via digital data and artificial intelligences.83 Such dilemmas are most intense when traditional security competition already exists, e.g., threat perceptions of Chinese military modernization, expanded 

fields of operation in the Indian Ocean and parts of Africa, and an assertiveness 

in relation to Japanese and US challenges.84 Access to the PLAN’s logistic base at 

Djibouti and port-fueling agreements elsewhere in the Indian Ocean have long 

been seen as presaging a wider power projection capacity as China modernizes its 

naval forces—or even as the ground work of a future network of dual-use bases.85

Massive investment into the MSR and the BRI, initially over 1.3 billion USD 

to be committed by various Chinese national and multilateral banks such as the 

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), demonstrates an increase in Chinese economic interests and activity across Eurasia, Southeast Asia, the South 

Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. These projects often cross, or are adjacent to, areas 

of recent or present instability, e.g., the New Eurasian Land Bridge Economic 

Corridor passes just north of Afghanistan and needs improved security in nearby 

Tajikistan, while the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor engages infrastructure 

projects in areas disputed by India and Pakistan and crosses through troubled 

Baluchistan in western Pakistan. Beijing has some 50 BRI and AIIB projects 

underway in the Middle East, including a comprehensive strategic partnership 

with Egypt and a strong presence in the Suez Canal Economic Zone. If the situa-
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 73

tion in Syria stabilizes, China may also consider further reconstruction aid and 

investment there beyond the 2 billion USD already pledged.86

Although Beijing mainly relies on host countries’ military and policing capabilities, China has been willing to provide some targeted nonlethal military aid 

and joint training opportunities. China provides small levels of military aid to 

wider Central Asia: circa 73 million USD to Afghanistan in 2016 (in the context 

of a dialogue on counterterrorism), and smaller amounts for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, mainly uniforms, accommodation, and training.87 Beyond the biannual 

peace missions run via the SCO and exercises with Russia, China has also engaged 

in more targeted exercises, including the Silk Road Cooperation Joint Counter 

Terrorism Training for Special Operation Units (held in Sri Lanka in 2015), the 

Explore-2016 Joint Anti-Terrorism Training of Special Forces with Saudi Arabia, 

and the China-ASEAN Maritime Exercise-2018, plus a range of recent exercises 

with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and the European Union.88 China is also a 

major exporter of weapons (5.2 percent of the global share), though well below 

the level of exports sustained by the United States and Russia (36 percent and 21 

percent respectively). Through 2014–2018, China sold weapons to 53 countries, 

many of which are in the developing world and the Middle East, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Thailand, Myanmar, and Turkmenistan.89 China has 

sought to build its own network of military-to-military cooperation, as noted in 

the 2019 Defense White Paper:

Since 2012, China has held over 100 joint exercises and training with more than 

30 countries. These engagements have covered traditional and nontraditional 

security fields, in locations extending from China’s periphery to the far seas, and 

the participating forces have expanded from land forces to multiple branches 

including the army, navy and air force. Cooperation and exchanges in personnel 

training have intensified. Since 2012, the PLA has sent over 1,700 military personnel to study in more than 50 countries. Over 20 Chinese military educational 

institutions have established and maintained inter-collegiate exchanges with 

their counterparts from more than 40 countries. Meanwhile, more than 10,000 

foreign military personnel from over 130 countries have studied in Chinese 

military universities and colleges.90

Beyond this, China has also expanded the role of PSCs, which are yet to develop 

the legal structure to allow for Chinese to operate in armed private security roles 

overseas.91 In 2014, Chinese firms probably spent up to 8 billion USD on overseas 

security, engaging numerous security providers, including the Chinese Overseas 

Security Group, China Security and Protection Group, Control Risks, Beijing 

Dewe Security Services, Hua Xin Zhong An, and the Frontier Services group. 

These operated along various parts of the BRI, usually working with local compa-
74 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

nies and training staff.92 These groups have been involved in evacuations of Chinese 

workers (from Samarra, Iraq, 2014, from Juba, South Sudan, 2016) and even train 

for hostage rescue situations. However, there are certain risks in these trends:

Despite their nominally private status, Chinese private security companies tend 

to operate with the tacit support and encouragement of the Chinese government 

and are often staffed by former PLA officers with close, if indirect, ties to the 

Chinese authorities. This makes them complex, quasi-governmental international actors whose behavior is unregulated, since existing legal frameworks—

both at the domestic and international level—do not clearly specify who is responsible for policing their operations.93

Overall, these trends suggest a heightened role for China in providing direct 

and indirect means to enhance security along the BRI, operating at an almost 

global level. To avoid parallel threat perceptions, China might in theory evolve 

into a net security provider of shared “public goods” rather than a “security problem” at the regional and global levels. Although this may be achievable with targeted partners such as Russia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and other Central Asian 

states, these enhanced operations have also generated enhanced threat perceptions. As such, they are part of an emerging security dilemma operating across 

NTS threats, focused not on the threats themselves but the means used to contain 

and control them. We can see this most clearly when we turn back to the limits of 

Chinese and Japanese cooperation in these areas.

China and Japan as NTS Partners and Competitors

Japan, via its historical expansion into mainland Asia in the early and midtwentieth century and its place as the primary US ally in Asia in the twenty-first 

century, finds itself positioned as a strategic competitor with China. This adversarial relationship seems to be deepening despite strong trade flows (China was 

Japan’s second-largest trading partner in 2018) and past cycles of diplomacy aimed 

at improving relations. From this point of view, infrastructure development is 

becoming another area of geopolitical rivalry between Japan and China, with both 

countries using direct investment and different multilateral paths (the AIIB and 

ADB) to “enhance political leverage” and “diffuse specific ideals for development.”94

Likewise, both countries have sought to provide security support roles for UN 

missions and selective provision of security services in the Indo-Pacific (see above). 

Both countries have been actively involved in antipiracy operations in the Indian 

Ocean and have opened support bases in Djibouti, alongside other countries.95

These Japanese and Chinese maritime efforts can be seen as mutual shadowing 
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 75

and soft power competition, rather than adversarial challenges across gray zones 

as found in the East China Sea.96

For both countries, NTS challenges have been areas where humanitarian cooperation has been seen as a way of improving international relationships. Japan and 

China have both been subject to major natural disasters and have experienced 

serious earthquakes that have led to mutual patterns of emergency relief, plus an 

active exchange of scientific information through government agencies (the China 

Earthquake Administration and the Japan Meteorological Agency) and several 

universities.97 For example, China’s 2008 Wenchuan earthquake disaster led to 

large-scale government, NGO, and public responses from Japan:

Many people in China were touched by the fact that the support was obviously 

sincere and had been provided without delay. Given the historical distrust and 

animosity between China and Japan, the dedication and professionalism of the 

Japanese rescue and medical teams made a particularly positive impression. The 

story of Japanese help has become a significant factor in the improvement of the 

image of Japan in China. According to a survey taken shortly after the Wenchuan earthquake, 83.6% of Chinese liked Japan, a remarkable 73.6% increase 

compared to the previous survey.98

Overall, environmental security has been seen as a useful area for cooperation and 

dialogue between China and Japan, even acting as a kind of “shock absorber” during periods of cyclic tension between the two states.99

However, strategic and tactical tensions have also been experienced in the midst 

of complex humanitarian disasters as well. Perhaps the clearest case of tensions 

over HADR can be seen during the response to the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, which stretched Japanese and US humanitarian response mechanisms. 

Russia and China closely observed these mechanisms, “possibly allowing them to 

identify SDF skills and capabilities to balance against.”100 China did send a 

15-member rescue team to the affected area and offered immediate material aid 

such as fuel, tents, and blankets, alongside aid mobilized by China’s Red Cross.101

However, Japan declined further aid such as deployment of the PLAN Peace Ark

hospital ship and special Chinese robots designed to operate in nuclear incidents. 

Two other important factors were engaged in relation to the Fukushima crisis. 

First, Japan was disturbed by close surveillance of its operations by Russia and 

China.102 Second, Japanese officials used the shortcomings experienced during 

the disaster to argue for the subsequent acquisition of dual-use mobile assets including Osprey aircraft and amphibious vessels, which raised concerns in China:

Because systems like airlift assets and amphibious ships can be used during both 

MOOTW and combat operations, Chinese officials and commentators have 
76 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

criticized Japan’s post-3/11 acquisitions as evidence of Tokyo’s aggressive intentions. A Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson condemned Japan’s 2013 decision to acquire RQ-4 reconnaissance aircraft (Global Hawk UAVs) and amphibious ships, arguing that Tokyo’s actions “us[ed] the pretext of safeguarding 

Japan’s own national security and regional peace for its military expansion.” In 

recent years, China has stepped up its own development of remotely piloted reconnaissance aircraft and has continued to modernize its fleet of amphibious 

warfare ships, suggesting it is balancing against Japan’s military expansion.103

China has since expanded its own development of unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAV) and modernized its amphibious warship capacities, suggesting ongoing 

balancing against Japan’s military capacities. Recently this has included the PRC’s 

commissioning of five Type-071 large landing ships and the building of a new 

Type-075 amphibious assault vessel, while UAVs, such as the SULA30 reconnaissance and Sea Cavalry SD-40 drones, are being developed and increasingly acquired for surveillance, reconnaissance, and limited strike roles.104 Indeed, by 

2018, China had become an active supplier of unmanned combat aerial vehicles, 

delivering 153 vehicles to 13 states, mainly developing and Middle Eastern countries.105 One again, these patterns suggest cycles of cooperation and suspicion 

following periods of NTS cooperation, largely focused on demonstrated capacities, observed gaps, or acquisitions to fill such gaps.

Conclusion: 

Inclusive Multilayered Security Rather than Preemption

The well-known problem for NTS is that it reconstructs the field of possible 

threats, thereby expanding potentially inappropriate solutions derived from conflict experiences and military operations to developmental and environmental 

problems.106 One noted example of this was the shift of Plan Colombia from its 

wider developmental, crop-substitution and policing origins (as originally planned 

in the late 1990s) toward a “war on drugs” model that ended up escalating regional 

violence, leading to an intensified “irrational war” model that Colombia would 

take decades to moderate.107 Excluding the South China Sea and the East China 

Sea, where direct territorial claims are in conflict, competition in the Indian Ocean 

is indirect, concerned with the ongoing presence of naval forces, access to ports, 

and the relative power projection and soft-power influence of India, Japan, China, 

the United States, and to a lesser degree other states (Australia and Indonesia). In 

such a setting, “even the most-benign military deployments can amplify mistrust 

and arms racing, suggesting that capabilities—rather than intentions—play a 

more significant role in driving competition between rivals.”108
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 77

Solutions to these problems are simple in theory but complex in application, 

resting on two approaches: where force is required, this should function through 

UN mandates or multilateral institutions; and where force is not required, there 

should be a shift toward demilitarization of responses—even when viewed as security issues.109 For example, a response to high levels of piracy requires armed, 

seagoing vessels to deter, destroy, or capture raiding pirates, often moving beyond 

EEZs into open seas. Over the last two decades, this has forced the creation of 

mixed international flotillas, engaging NATO, the European Union (EU), and 

Indo-Pacific navies, as well as regional frameworks such as the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in 

Asia (ReCAAP). Through such frameworks, US, Japanese, Indian, Australian, and 

Chinese naval forces (ReCAAP now has 20 member states) have become shared 

responders to pirate attacks, and do provide improved SLOC security, while the 

UN, the African Union, and the EU have worked on reducing the land-based 

causes of piracy.

However, individual, uncoordinated task forces operating in remote oceans can 

equally be seen as power-projection demonstrations rather than net security providers. Even when designed to protect regional shipping, such operations still run 

the risk of being seen to wave the flag of national capacities. Instead, military 

forces should clearly distinguish and announce SLOC patrol operations versus 

other kinds of military exercises. Likewise, care needs to be taken to reduce reactive and competitive factors coming into play when framing MOOTW and 

HADR operations, with clear public diplomacy shaped to reduce cycles of followon competition.110 Where possible, such operations should avoid deployment into 

sensitive regions and be used to build wider people-to-people relations, e.g., via 

the coordinated deployment of multinational civilian responders.111

Where major military force is not needed, there is a need to rapidly demilitarize 

operations after the initial period of emergency deployment. In part, this can be 

done by the handover of tasks to other government agencies as well as UN, civilian, 

NGO, and aid groups (30,000 civil society groups are now registered or liaising 

with the UN at different levels).112 It also requires an improved flow from emergency and disaster response to aid, reconstruction, and then developmental phases.113 Only the early part of these tasks can be undertaken by HADR or MOOTW 

responses, though cooperation is also run through multilateral frameworks such as 

the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and AHA, with 

global preventive measures being developed through the United Nations Office for 

Disaster Risk Reduction and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 

(from 2015). Demilitarization requires a widening of cooperation beyond the involved militaries to other agencies and a deepening toward cooperation among 
78 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

nonstate actors, NGOs, civil society, and volunteer groups—thus, enhancing 

people-to-people engagement.114 In most cases, the aim should be to first demilitarize and where possible desecuritize responses as they come under effective international and then national management. Beyond this, sustained and appropriate 

economic aid and investment may be needed to help sustain struggling states or 

regions, depending on the size and type of ongoing NTS crises they face.115

Traditionally, NTS and humanitarian operations were seen as areas where cooperation was more likely than competition, and soft power viewed as easy to 

accrue through constructive use of military assets. However, given the complex 

geopolitical and geo-economic contexts of the Indo-Pacific and divided reactions 

to the BRI, these assumptions need further investigation.116 India, Australia, the 

United States, and, to some degree, Japan have remained highly critical of the lack 

of transparency and multilateral accountability found in many BRI projects. Beyond specific concerns such as environmental standards and levels of debt for poor 

and small countries, there is also concern about the geopolitical leverage China 

gains by leading a project that might transform at least three continents.117 In 

such a setting, even logical provisions against NTS threats along BRI corridors 

become two-edged swords, strengthening a web of security relationships in which 

China is the senior partner. Given the rising geopolitical tensions between the 

major powers of the Indo-Pacific, it is time for a calibrated review of the use of 

military diplomacy and HADR operation among competing states. 

Dr. R. James Ferguson

Dr. Ferguson is an assistant professor of international relations at Bond University (Australia), where he also serves 

as director of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies. His research and teaching areas include international relations, strategic studies, regionalism, and globalization. Dr. Ferguson has coauthored or written three 

books: China’s Quest for Global Order: From Peaceful Rise to Harmonious World (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2013); The 

Politics and Philosophy of Chinese Power: The Timeless and the Timely (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017); and China’s 

Eurasian Dilemmas: Roads and Risks for a Sustainable Global Power (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018). Currently, he is 

writing a new contracted book, Greening China’s New Silk Roads: The Sustainable Governance of Belt and Road.

Notes

1. Daniel Baldino and Andrew Carr, “Defence Diplomacy and the Australian Defence Force: 

Smokescreen or Strategy?,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 70, no. 2 (2016): 139–58, 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2015.1113229.

2. James Dobbins, et al., Europe’s Role in Nation-Building: From the Balkans to the Congo (Santa 

Monica, CA: Rand, 2008); and James Dobbins, et al., Overcoming Obstacles to Peace: Local Factors 

in Nation-Building (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2013).

3. People’s Republic of China, The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces (Beijing: 

Information Office of the State Council, People’s Republic of China, April 2013), http://news

.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013–04/16/c_132312681.htm; People’s Republic of China, Chi-
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 79

na’s Military Strategy (white paper, Beijing: People’s Republic of China, May 2015); Ministry of 

Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2019 and Beyond (Tokyo: Ministry of Defense, 18 December 2018), https://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guide 

line/2019/pdf/20181218_e.pdf; Gaoyue Fan and James Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War, RSIS Policy Report, February 2019, https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content

/uploads/2019/02/PR190225_Introduction-to-Chinas-Military-Operations-Other-than-War.

pdf; and Japhish S. Gill, and Ryan Mitra, “India’s Indo-Pacific Strategy: Understanding India’s 

Spheres of Influence”, SIR Journal of International Relations, 5 July 2018, http://www.sirjournal.org

/research/2018/7/5/indias-indo-pacific-strategy-understanding-indias-spheres-of-influence.

4. Stéphanie Martel, “From Ambiguity to Contestation: Discourse(s) of Non-traditional Security in the ASEAN Community,” Pacific Review 30, no. 4 (2017): 549–65, DOI:10.1080/0951

2748.2016.1264462; and US Department of State “US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue 

Outcomes of the Strategic Track,” 14 July 2014, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014

/07/229239.htm.

5. Erik Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas: Can Military Operations Other 

than War Intensify Security Competition in Asia?,” Asian Security 14, no. 3 (2018): 282–302, 

DOI: 10.1080/14799855.2017.1414044.

6. Andrea Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats: The Expanding Role of 

Non-Traditional Security in Chinese Foreign and Security Policy,” Journal of Contemporary China

27, iss. 112 (2018): 611–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2018.1433584.

7. Shunji Cui and Barry Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society,” Chinese 

Journal of International Politics 9, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 181–210, DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pow005.

8. Martel, “From Ambiguity to Contestation,”; and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 

World Drug Report: Part 1, Executive Summary (Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and 

Crime, 2019), https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2019/prelaunch/WDR19_Booklet_1_EXECUTIVE

_SUMMARY.pdf.

9. Angela Pennisi di Floristella, “Risk Society and ASEAN: A New Approach to Disaster 

Management,” Pacific Review 29, no. 2 (2016): 283–305.

10. Martel, “From Ambiguity to Contestation.”

11. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

12. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.”

13. Fan and Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War; and Robert 

Hein, “Options to Counter Piracy in the Horn of Africa,” Real Clear Defense, 20 June 2017, 

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/20/options_to_counter_piracy_in_the

_horn_of_africa_111625.html.

14. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

15. Peter Connolly, “Chinese Evacuations and Power Projection (Part1): Overseas Citizen 

Protection,” Strategist, 12 December 2018, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinese-evacuations

-and-power-projection-part-1-overseas-citizen-protection/; R. James Ferguson, China’s Eurasian 

Dilemmas: Roads and Risks for a Sustainable Global Power (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 

2018); and Vijay Sakhuja, “Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and Indian 

Ocean Networks,” Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 3 March 2014, http://www.ipcs.org

/article/india-the-world/increasing-maritime-competition-iora-ions-milan-and-the-indian

-ocean-4320.html.
80 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

16. Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, “Two Decades of International Cooperation: 

A Look Back on 20 years of SDF Activities Abroad,” Japan Defense Focus, no. 24, December 2011, 

https://www.mod.go.jp/e/jdf/no24/specialfeature01.html; Christopher W. Hughes, Japan’s ReEmergence as a ‘Normal’ Military Power (London: IISS, Adelphi Paper, 2004), 368–69; Christopher 

W. Hughes, Japan’s Remilitarization (London: IISS, 2009); and UN Office for the Coordination 

of Humanitarian Affairs, “Indonesia, Maldives, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Thailand: Earthquake and 

Tsunami,” OCHA Situation Report No. 9, 1 January 2005, https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia

/indonesia-maldives-seychelles-sri-lanka-thailand-earthquake-and-tsunami-ocha.

17. Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, Defense of Japan 2018 (Tokyo: MOD, 2018), 

https://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/pdf/2018/DOJ2018_Digest_1204.pdf; John Chipman, et 

al., The Military Balance 2017 (London: IISS, 2017); Rikki Kirsten, “Australia-Japan Cooperation: 

Changing Japanese Security Norms,” Australian Outlook, 3 March 2016, http://www.international

affairs.org.au/australian_outlook/australia-japan-cooperation-changing-japanese-security-norms/; 

IISS, “Japan’s Defence Budget Bolsters Military Roles,” Strategic Comments 21, comment 2, February 

2015; and Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, Defense of Japan 2016 (annual white paper, 

Ministry of Defense E-Pub, 2016), http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2016.html.

18. Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 

2019 and Beyond.

19. Neil Melvin, The Foreign Military Presence in the Horn of Africa Region, SIPRI Background 

Paper, April 2019, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/sipribp1904.pdf.

20. Peter Layton, “Japan’s Very Busy Fighter Force,” Interpreter, 3 April 2019, https://www

.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/japan-s-very-busy-fighter-force; Hughes, Japan’s Re-Emergence; 

and Hughes, Japan’s Remilitarization.

21. Martel, “From Ambiguity to Contestation.”

22. Mathias Albert and Barry Buzan, “Securitization, Sectors and Functional Differentiation,” 

Security Dialogue 42, nos. 4–5 (2011): 412–25.

23. Shahar Hameiri, Lee Jones, and John Heathershaw, “Reframing the Rising Powers Debate: State Transformation and Foreign Policy,” Third World Quarterly 40, no. 8 (2019): 1397–414; 

and Xiaobu Su, “Non-Traditional Security and China’s Transnational Narcotics Control in Northern Laos and Myanmar,” Political Geography 48 (2015): 72–78.

24. Louise S.L. Teh, “What Is at Stake? Status and Threats to South China Sea Marine Fisheries,” Ambio 46, no. 1 (February 2017): 57–72, doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0819-0.

25. See Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, Indonesia’s Maritime Concept: Intent, Implications and Cooperation (Aus-CSCAP, 44th Meeting, Canberra, 24 August 2016, published April 2017), http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments

/2017-04/report-_as_posted-_2_dec.pdf; Prashanth Parameswaran, “What’s with Indonesia’s ‘Big’ 

Military Exercise near the South China Sea,” Diplomat, 23 May 2017, http://thediplomat

.com/2017/05/whats-with-indonesias-big-military-exercise-near-the-south-china-sea/; and Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto, “Breaking the Silence: Indonesia vs China in the Natuna Islands,” Diplomat, 23 March 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/breaking-the-silence-indonesia-vs-china

-in-the-natuna-islands/. For caution on inflated threat perceptions of Chinese fishing catches, see

Greg Austin, “China’s Assault on South China Sea Fisheries: Doing the Maths,” Strategist, 7 February 2019, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/chinas-assault-on-south-china-sea-fisheries-doing

-the-maths/.

26. Martel, “From Ambiguity to Contestation.”
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 81

27. These include the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002) and the 

ASEAN Haze Monitoring System (HMS) from 2013.

28. Tavida Kamolvej, “Disaster Management: Can ASEAN Be a Global Leader?,” RSIS Commentary 90, 8 May 2019, https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CO19090.pdf.

29. H.D.P. Envall, “The ‘Abe Doctrine’: Japan’s New Regional Realism,” International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 4 June 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcy014.

30. Richard Ghiasy and Jiayi Zhou, The Silk Road Economic Belt: Considering Security Implications and EU-China Cooperation Prospects (Solna: SIPRI, 2017), https://www.sipri.org/sites

/default/files/The-Silk-Road-Economic-Belt.pdf.

31. For definitions of soft and smart power, see Joseph S. Nye, “Soft power and American foreign policy,” Political Science Quarterly 19, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 255–70; Joseph S. Nye, Soft 

Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004); Joseph S. Nye, 

“Recovering American Leadership,” Survival 50, no. 1 (February 2008): 55–68; Joseph S. Nye, 

“Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2009, http://www

.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65163/joseph-s-nye-jr/get-smart; and Joseph S. Nye, “What China 

and Russia Don’t Get about Soft Power,” Foreign Policy, 29 April 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy

.com/articles/2013/04/29/what_china_and_russia_don_t_get_about_soft_power.

32. R. James Ferguson and Rosita Dellios, The Politics and Philosophy of Chinese Power: The Timeless and the Timely (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017); and Ferguson, China’s Eurasian Dilemmas.

33. Herve Lamahieu, “Give Big Takeaways from the 2019 Asia Power Index,” Interpreter, 29 

March 2019, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/power-shifts-fevered-times-2019

-asia-power-index. For an alternative ranking of the PRC as 3rd globally in geopolitical capability, 

see James Rogers, ed., Audit of Geopolitical Capability: An Assessment of Twenty Major Powers (London, Henry Jackson Society, 2019).

34. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Priority Policy for Development Cooperation (Tokyo: International Cooperation Bureau, April 2015), http://www.mofa.go.jp/files

/000082915.pdf.

35. Ash Rossiter, “The ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ Strategy and Japan’s Emerging Security 

Posture,” Rising Powers Quarterly 3, no. 2 (2018): 1113–131, http://risingpowersproject.com

/quarterly/the-free-and-open-indo-pacific-strategy-and-japans-emerging-security-posture/.

36. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Priority Policy for Development Cooperation.

37. Ibid.; “Japan Donor Profile,” Donor Tracker, 30 March 2019, https://donortracker.org

/country/japan; “New ODA Policy Raises Risks,” Japan Times, 20 January 2015, https://www

.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/01/30/editorials/new-oda-policy-raises-risks/#.XgtdxUdKiUl; 

Japan International Cooperation Agency, “Looking Ahead to TICAD in 2019: A Japanese Initiative for a Prosperous and Healthy Africa,” July 2018, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications

/j-world/1807_04.html.

38. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Priority Policy for Development Cooperation; “ODA for Foreign Armies Mulled,” Japan Times, 24 May 2014, https://www.japantimes.co.jp

/news/2014/05/24/national/politics-diplomacy/oda-for-foreign-armies-mulled/#.XgteC0dKiUl; 

and “Japan to Increase Aid to Asia amid China’s Growing Maritime Assertiveness,” Japan Times, 9 

March 2016, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/09/national/politics-diplomacy/japan

-increase-aid-asia-amid-chinas-growing-maritime-assertiveness/#.XgteOEdKiUm.

39. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Cabinet Decision on the Development 

Cooperation Charter (Tokyo: MOD, April 2015), 6, https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000067701.pdf.
82 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

40. Yun Sun, “Rising Sino-Japanese Competition in Africa,” Brookings: Africa in Focus, 

31 August 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2016/08/31/rising-sino-japanese

-competition-in-africa/.

41. Japan International Cooperation Agency, “Japan’s ODA,” JICA Annual Report, 2016, 

https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/reports/annual/2016/c8h0vm0000aj21oz-att

/2016_05.pdf; and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Cabinet Decision on the 

Development Cooperation Charter.

42. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Japan, Cabinet Decision on the Development 

Cooperation Charter.

43. Andreea Brînză, “Japan’s Belt and Road Balancing Act,” Diplomat, 8 November 2018, 

https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/japans-belt-and-road-balancing-act/; and Ruchita Beri, “Asia 

Africa Growth Corridor: Towards a Shared Philosophy,” Africa Trends (ISDA), January–June 

2017, https://idsa.in/africatrends/asia-africa-growth-corridor-rberi.

44. Ll. López I Vidal and Àngels Pelegrín, “Hedging against China: Japanese Strategy towards 

a Rising Power,” Asian Security 14, no. 2 (2018): 193–211, DOI: 10.1080/14799855.2017.1333983.

45. Carlos Ramirez, “Abe’s Trump Challenge and Japan’s Foreign Policy Choices,” Diplomat, 7 

March 2017, ; and John MacIntyre, “Japan’s Strategy of Dynamic Deterrence and Defense Forces,” 

Joint Force Quarterly 62, no. 2 (2012): 81–89, http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-65/JFQ-65

_81-89_MacIntyre.pdf.

46. IISS, “Japan’s Defence Budget Bolsters Military Roles.”

47. Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, Defense of Japan 2014 (annual white paper, Ministry of Defense, E-Book, 2014), http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2014.html; and Ministry 

of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2019 and Beyond.

48. Matthew Burke and Aya Ichihashi, “Japanese Jet Scrambles Increased Sharply in FY 2018 

in Response to China,” Stars and Stripes, 30 April 2019, https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific

/japanese-jet-scrambles-increased-sharply-in-fy-2018-in-response-to-china-1.579002; and Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2019 and Beyond.

49. Ramirez, “Abe’s Trump Challenge and Japan’s Foreign Policy Choices”; and MacIntyre, 

“Japan’s Strategy of Dynamic Deterrence and Defense Forces.”

50. Chipman, et al., The Military Balance 2017; Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, 

National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2019 and Beyond; Ramirez, “Abe’s Trump Challenge 

and Japan’s Foreign Policy Choices”; IISS, “Japan’s Defence Budget Bolsters Military Roles”; and 

Anne E. Robertson, Militarization of Space (New York: Facts on File, 2011).

51. Yiki Tatsumi, “Is Constitutional Revision a Bridge Too Far for Abe?,” East Asia Forum, 28 

March 2019, https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/28/is-constitutional-revision-a-bridge-too

-far-for-abe/; Leo Lewis, “Abe Sets 2020 Target to Revise Japan’s Pacifist Constitution,” Financial 

Times, 3 May 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/a4d2aaa0-2fd9-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a; and 

Misato Matsuoka, “Japan’s Development Cooperation Charter: Towards Proactive Pacifism,” 

Academia.edu, 21 December 2016, https://www.academia.edu/29360602/Japans_Development

_Cooperation_Charter_Towards_Proactive_Pacifism_-_MUN_Planet_21.10.2016.

52. Jonathan McClory, et al., The Soft Power 30, A Global Ranking of Soft Power (London, Portland, 2016), http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/wp-content/themes/softpower

/pdfs/the_soft_power_30.pdf; and Jonathan McClory, et al., The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of 

Soft Power 2018 (London: Portland, 2018), https://softpower30.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07

/The-Soft-Power-30-Report-2018.pdf.
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 83

53. Ferguson, China’s Eurasian Dilemmas.

54. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report: Part 1; and Su, “NonTraditional Security and China’s Transnational Narcotics Control.” For alternative narratives of 

the Opium Wars of the nineteenth century, see Stephen Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War 

and the End of China’s Last Golden Age (London: Atlantic Books, 2018); and Zheng Wang, Never 

Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations (New York: 

Colombia University Press, 2012).

55. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society”; Su, “Non-Traditional 

Security and China’s Transnational Narcotics Control”; Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and 

Rising Threats”; and ASEAN, Joint Declaration on Cooperation in the Field of Non-traditional Security Issues (6th ASEAN-China Summit, Phnom Penh, 4 November 2002), http://asean.org/?static

_post=joint-declaration-of-asean-and-china-on-cooperation-in-the-field-of-non-traditional

-security-issues-6th-asean-china-summit-phnom-penh-4-november-2002-2.

56. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats,” 614.

57. People’s Republic of China, Full Text: China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation

(white paper, State Council Information Office, January 2017), http://news.xinhuanet.com/english

/china/2017-01/11/c_135973695.htm; People’s Republic of China, Full Text: China’s Arctic Policy

(white paper State Council Information Office, January 2018), http://english.gov.cn/archive

/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm; People’s Republic of China, China’s 

National Defense in the New Era (white paper, State Council Information Office, July 2019), http://

english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d

.html; and Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.”

58. Fan and Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.

61. Institute for Security and Development, China’s Role in UN Peacekeeping (policy

backgrounder, March 2018), http://isdp.eu/content/uploads/2018/03/PRC-Peacekeeping

-Backgrounder.pdf.

62. Fan and Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War, 4.

63. Ibid., 9.

64. Ferguson and Rosita Dellios, The Politics and Philosophy of Chinese Power.

65. Institute for Security and Development, China’s Role in UN Peacekeeping.

66. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats”; and Connolly, “Chinese Evacuations and Power Projection.”

67. Connolly, “Chinese Evacuations and Power Projection.”

68. Irna Hofman, “Politics or Profits Along the ‘Silk Road’: What Drives Chinese Farms in 

Tajikistan and Helps Them Thrive,” Eurasian Geography and Economics 57, no. 3 (2016): 457–81, 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2016.1238313.

69. Timothy R. Heath, China’s Pursuit of Overseas Security (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2018), 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2200/RR2271/RAND

_RR2271.pdf; and Ferguson, China’s Eurasian Dilemmas.

70. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.” (Ghiselli 2018)

71. David Brewster, “China’s New Network of Indian Ocean Bases,” Interpreter, 20 January 

2018, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chinas-new-network-indian-ocean-bases.

72. Fan and Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War.
84 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

73. Neil Renwick, “China’s Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction: Human Security Challenges in a Time of Climate Change,” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 4, no. 1 

(2017): 26–49.

74. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

75. Renwick, “China’s Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction”; and Cui and Buzan, “Great 

Power Management in International Society.”

76. Fan and Char, Introduction to China’s Military Operations Other Than War, 8.

77. People’s Republic of China, Full Text: China’s Policies on Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation

(white paper, State Council Information Office, January 2017), http://news.xinhuanet.com/english

/china/2017-01/11/c_135973695.htm; People’s Republic of China, Full Text: China’s Arctic Policy

(white paper State Council Information Office, January 2018), http://english.gov.cn/archive

/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm; People’s Republic of China, China’s 

National Defense in the New Era (white paper, State Council Information Office, July 2019), http://

english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d

.html; and Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.”

78. See Georg Schmitt, “As Belt and Road 2.0 Gathers Momentum, China Aims to Avoid ‘Debt 

Traps’,” World Economic Forum, 7 April 2019, https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/04/as-belt

-and-road-2-0-gathers-momentum-china-aims-to-avoid-debt-traps/; Suocheng Dong, et al., 

“Green Development Modes of the Belt and Road,” Geography, Environment, Sustainability (GES 

Journal) 10, no. 1 (2017): 53–69, DOI: 10.24057/2071-9388-2017-10-1-53-69.

79. Ferguson and Rosita Dellios, The Politics and Philosophy of Chinese Power, 107–108.

80. Nengye Liu, “Will China Build a Green Belt and Road in the Arctic,” Review of European, 

Comparative and International Environmental Law 27, no. 1 (April 2018): 55–62, DOI: 10.1111

/reel.12238; and People’s Republic of China, Full Text: China’s Arctic Policy (white paper State 

Council Information Office, January 2018), http://english.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26

/content_281476026660336.htm.

81. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.”

82. Ibid., 624.

83. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas”; Nagy 2019; and Kai-Fu Lee, AI 

Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).

84. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

85. For such speculations, usually denied by host countries, see Brewster, “China’s New Network of Indian Ocean Bases.”

86. Dan Hemenway, “Chinese Strategic Engagement with Assad’s Syria,” Syria Source (blog), 21 

December 2018, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/chinese-strategic-engagement

-with-assad-s-syria; Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Niv Horesh, eds. China’s Presence in the Middle 

East: Implications of the One Belt One Road Initiative (London: Routledge, 2017); and Naser alTamimi, “Belt and Road Initiative: The Middle East’s Growing Role?,” Al Arabiya English, 17 May 

2017 http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/05/17/Belt-Road-initiative-The

-Middle-East-s-growing-role-.html.

87. Ferguson, China’s Eurasian Dilemmas; Shannon Tiezzi, “What’s Behind China’s Offer of 

Military Aid to Afghanistan?,” Diplomat, 11 March 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03

/whats-behind-chinas-offer-of-military-aid-to-afghanistan/; Umed Partov, “Beijing Encroaching 

on Moscow’s Military Dominance in Tajikistan,” Modern Tokyo Times, 19 November 2016, http://
Nontraditional Security Dilemmas on the Belt and Road

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 85

moderntokyotimes.com/?p=6155; Joshua Kucera, “China Boosts Military Aid to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,” Eurasia Net, 4 September 2014, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/69846; and Joshua 

Kucera, “Pentagon Proposes $50 Million Program to Help Tajikistan Fight,” Eurasianet, 16 February 2016, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/77366.

88. People’s Republic of China, China’s National Defense in the New Era (white paper, State 

Council Information Office, July 2019), http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper

/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d.html.

89. Pieter D. Wezeman, et al., “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2018,” SIPRI Fact 

Sheet, March 2019, https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/fs_1903_at_2018.pdf.

90. People’s Republic of China, China’s National Defense in the New Era (white paper, State 

Council Information Office, July 2019), http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper

/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d.html.

91. Helena Legarda and Meia Nouwens, “Guardians of the Belt and Road: The Internationalization of China’s Private Security Companies,” MERICS China Monitor, 16 August 2018, https://

www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/180815_ChinaMonitor_Guardians_final.pdf; Boh 

Ze Kai, “One Belt, One Road, One Singapore – Analysis,” Eurasia Review, 13 April 2016, http://

www.eurasiareview.com/13042016-one-belt-one-road-one-singapore-analysis/; and Alessandro 

Arduino, “Security in One Belt One Road: Singapore’s Role in Training Expertise,” RSIS Commentary 125, 25 May 2016.

92. Legarda and Nouwens, “Guardians of the Belt and Road”; Ferguson, China’s Eurasian 

Dilemmas; Reuters, “Security Firms to Cash in Protecting China’s ‘New Silk Road’,” South China 

Morning Post, 1 May 2017, http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article

/2090033/security-firms-cash-protecting-chinas-new-silk-road; and Xin Liu, “Private Security 

Companies Struggle to Go Abroad Due to Legal Restrictions,” Global Times, 23 December 2015, 

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/960208.shtml.

93. Legarda and Nouwens, “Guardians of the Belt and Road,” 4.

94. Hidetaka Yoshimatsu, “New Dynamics in Sino-Japanese Rivalry: Sustaining Infrastructure Development in Asia,” Journal of Contemporary China 27, no. 113 (2018): 719–34, DOI: 

10.1080/10670564.2018.1458059. For a partial shift by Japan toward conditional engagement 

with AIIB projects, see Asei Ito, “China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Japan’s Response: From 

Non-Participation to Conditional Engagement,” East Asia 36, no. 2 ( June 2019): 115–28, https://

doi.org/10.1007/s12140-019-09311-z.

95. Ministry of Defense, Government of Japan, National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 

2019 and Beyond; and Melvin, The Foreign Military Presence in the Horn of Africa Region.

96. Layton, “Japan’s Very Busy Fighter Force”; and Hughes, Japan’s Re-Emergence; and Hughes, 

Japan’s Remilitarization.

97. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society.”

98. Ibid., 876.

99. Ibid., 882.

100. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas,” 292.

101. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society.”

102. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

103. Ibid., 296, brackets added.

104. James Hackett, et al., eds., The Military Balance 2019 (London: IISS, 2019); and LinGreenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”
86 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Ferguson

105. Wezeman, et al., “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2018.”

106. Ghiselli, “Diplomatic Opportunities and Rising Threats.”

107. Nazih Richani, “Multinational Corporations, Rentier Capitalism, and the War System in 

Colombia,” Latin American Politics and Society 47, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 113–44.

108. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas,” 283.

109. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society.”

110. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

111. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society.”

112. See Myoo-Man Ha, “Four Models on Globalizing Disaster Management in the AsiaPacific Region: A Comparative Perspective,” Pacific Review 28, no 2 (2015): 211–35, https://doi

.org/10.1080/09512748.2014.995123.

113. Ibid.

114. Cui and Buzan, “Great Power Management in International Society.”

115. For the importance of economic assistance as part of this transition, see Dobbins, et al., 

Overcoming Obstacles to Peace.

116. Lin-Greenberg, “Non-Traditional Security Dilemmas.”

117. Ghiasy and Zhou, The Silk Road Economic Belt.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 87

VIEW

Assessing Republic of Singapore 

Air Force’s Defensive Air 

Operations Capabilities

Confronting Challenges in Unconventional Scenarios

Anant Mishra

During the post–Cold War era, we have witnessed numerous reforms in 

international security architecture, which, with time, diminished any 

possibility of a full-scale military confrontation between two or more 

states. That being said, transborder territorial aggression continues to persist as 

possible conflict zones across the globe; unconventional threats to domestic and 

international security such as transnational organized crime, radical militant fundamentalism, violent nonstate actors, natural and man-made calamities, along 

with international health epidemics have further complicated the challenges faced 

by military establishments around the globe. To strengthen combat effectiveness, 

aviation assets are quickly being deployed in operations other than traditional war, 

such as (but not limited to) humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) 

efforts and counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and peacekeeping initiatives.

As a consequence of the evolution in military strategies and tactics, there was a 

phenomenal increase in the cost of fighter aircraft that aggressively expanded the 

use of airpower. In an effort to fulfill necessities during peacekeeping operations, 

numerous air forces, including the United States and Royal Air Force, were forced 

to postpone their mobilization of fleet and concomitant squadrons of fighter aircraft over the years to acquire and deploy armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 

during combat operations in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan.1

Since its first peacekeeping mission to Cambodia in 1993, the Republic of 

Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has, with time, learned and subsequently strengthened the use of aerial assets to match their partners and allies while contributing significant forces to counterterrorism operations, assisting in HADR efforts, 

and participating in joint counterpiracy operations. Consequently, the success 

of such operations and Singapore’s continued efforts to expand the use of air 

assets have phenomenally increased the dependence on the RSAF to maintain 

peace and security.

This article highlights the evolution of airpower due to rampant changes in the 

international security environment and advances in technology to make a case for 

further investment in the RSAF and its airpower policy to defend Singapore. The 
88 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Mishra

article further highlights the progressive expansion of airpower that strengthened 

Singapore for countless years, while portraying the challenges faced by Singapore—particularly its territorial vulnerabilities and threats to its strategic objectives. The primary operational objective and focus for the RSAF should be to 

defend Singapore from enemies foreign and domestic rather than extending its 

resources and overutilization of vital assets in complex environments outside war. 

Policy makers must focus their attention on formulating an effective policy to 

secure strategic objectives of an island nation such as Singapore during the duality 

of war and peace, while restructuring the RSAF’s standard operating procedure to 

fulfill the needs during war and peace without hindering its ability to secure a 

quick and a firm victory in the former.

Systematic Evolution in Air Capabilities

In the words of one of the oldest air forces in the world, the British Royal Air 

Force, airpower is the fusion of tactics and strategy demonstrated through airpower in an effort to alter the course of scenarios involving multiple actors and 

forcing them to alter their plan of action. Separating the numerous intangible 

characteristics of airpower, we limit the segments of its capability to speed, altitude, and elevation. Swiftly outmaneuvering opposing ground forces and overpowering topographic challenges that could significantly compromise movement 

of the ground forces, military leadership, by deploying air assets, could further 

maintain fire superiority without losing tempo and agility, while focusing their 

firepower on the opposing force’s center of mass in an effort to deliver a significant 

blow to the enemy’s assets and neutralize them at the onset of battle.2 When it 

comes to potentiates of airpower, it is capable of catering to all needs and strategic 

interests of a state and can be segregated into major segments such as air dominance/superiority; demonstration of force; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; and first aggressor abilities.3

 As a military asset, 

strategic and tactical commanders can employ airpower for both aggressive and 

defensive campaigns.

The pinnacle of offensive modern air warfare was inarguably attained during 

the Cold War, when massive squadrons of long- and short-range strategic/tactical 

bombers, medium and multirole fighter aircraft, and long-range cruise and ballistic missile systems catered to the demands of the erstwhile hegemons: the Soviet Union and the United States. With the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, 

the United States, a sole global power supported by its NATO allies, actively engaged in a few conventional air skirmishes in the Middle East (particularly Iraq) 

and in Kosovo. Interestingly, NATO and US air forces actively engaged in more 

unconventional warfare rather than traditional war. The United States and its al-
Assessing Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Defensive Air Operations Capabilities

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 89

lies’ engagements in Somalia, Bosnia, and in Libya, followed by their HADR 

operations (particularly in response to the Asian tsunami, earthquake in Nepal, 

and nuclear disaster in Japan), are prime examples. Considering the shortcomings 

of air assets to firmly seize and hold territory, they were significantly employed to 

support ground forces in terms of ISR, and precision strikes. One such example 

can be seen in the use of air assets that played a major role in US-backed efforts 

to defeat Islamic State forces.

The evolution in aerial engagement and tactical deployment during the early 

1990s and throughout Washington’s global war on terrorism, supplemented by the 

rapid advances in technology and production cost inefficiency, has significantly 

reduced global and regional powers’ reliance on traditional aerial assets due to the 

rising costs in maintaining a large fleet. This has resulted in many lesser powers 

relying further on developing and employing UAVs for many missions, including 

ISR. This was evident from Washington’s decision to reduce the procurement of 

over 700 F-22 multi-domain fighter aircrafts to almost 187, while significantly 

increasing production of armed UAVs for combat purposes.4 Insignificant in quantity and cost inefficient in operation, Washington did not deploy its prestigious 

squadrons of stealth bombers and F-22 advanced multirole aircrafts during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan nor in the low-risk airspace of Libya.5

 Instead, 

Washington deployed armed MQ-9 Reaper UAVs to support International Security Assistance Force allies on the battlefields of Yemen and Afghanistan today and 

deployed RQ-7 Shadows and RQ-4 Global Hawk for humanitarian ISR missions. 

In an effort to strengthen ground forces’ engagement capabilities in effectively 

countering the Islamic State at the onset of Operation Inherent Resolve, Washington deployed squadrons of armed and unarmed UAVs to gather critical real-time 

surveillance on enemy forces during which the UAVs’ performance was outstanding, convincing the United States to separately dedicate finances from its budget 

toward further development and deployment of such assets.6

Defending Singaporean Skies

Since its establishment as the Unified Singapore Air Defence Command in 

early 1968, armed with a squadron of eight Cessna 172K, most of the air force’s 

acquisitions were based on immediate demand to maintain squadron strength 

instead of procuring air assets based on future operational scenarios. Learning 

lessons from Japanese aerial superiority in the Pacific during World War II, Singaporean leaders realized the importance of a strong and reliable air force that 

could not only effectively counter opposing enemy airpower but also defend territorial boundaries when and if challenged. Operationally expanding under the 

new name of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), the island’s air arm 
90 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Mishra

initiated acquisition of air assets for basic air defenses in the early 1970s, strengthening such capabilities in the late 1980s and devising state-of-the-art training 

and recruitment of air force personnel only by the 1990s.7 Subsequently, the RSAF 

continues to make major progress in transforming this once nascent air force into 

a fourth-generation fighting force.

However, the RSAF mission to defend Singaporean airspace and the nation’s 

territorial integrity has not deviated since its establishment, despite the rampant 

evolution in combat environments that occurred in the international security domain and frequent technological developments that have opened the doors for 

economies to cooperate in unconventional situations outside war. Without altering 

its mission, such advancements have enabled the RSAF to maintain a professional 

organizational architecture and logical operational mechanism in all domains.

The RSAF gained its first international experience through a UN mission, deploying four Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma utility helicopters along with a contingent of 65 troops to assist the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, with a mandate to assist in election monitoring. Subsequently, the RSAF 

boosted its international cooperation initiatives by participating in a series of 

peacekeeping missions and contributing over a dozen air assets to UN missions 

active in Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-Leste, and in the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the RSAF participated in numerous HADR operations, particularly in 

post-disaster operations in Thailand and Indonesia, search-and-rescue operations 

of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, and counterpiracy operations in the Indian 

Ocean.8 Singapore received global appreciation for its efforts, further strengthening its image as a global contributor to the UN and a responsible ally at the global 

podium and securing its national territorial boundaries and strategic assets as a 

responsible state.

In light of the expanded role of air assets during unconventional operations and 

the Singapore’s aforementioned faithful cooperation, are policy makers and military leaders ready to formulate a dedicated unconventional policy and invest 

RSAF assets in an effort to maintain global peace and security? Or should they 

focus their attention on strengthening/formulating conventional airpower in an 

effort to defend the nation’s strategic assets and territorial integrity? Irrespective 

of the air capabilities, the decision to delegate air assets and resources to HADR 

efforts would seem to be obvious, particularly taking Singapore’s past into account. It is more important, however, for military leaders and policy makers to 

formulate a strategy that allows Singapore to deploy air assets in peacekeeping 

operations without compromising its ability to fight a conventional war, keeping 

in mind Indo-Pacific regional instability and Singapore’s strategic assets.
Assessing Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Defensive Air Operations Capabilities

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 91

(Photo courtesy of Singapore Ministry of Defence)

Figure 1. Exercise Forging Sabre. Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Defence Heng 

Chee How receives a brief on the capabilities of the command post at Exercise Forging 

Sabre 2019, hosted at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. Conducted 30 September to 10 October 2019, the exercise involved around 600 personnel from the Singapore Armed Forces 

(SAF), including the Singapore Army’s Commandos, and assets from the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) such as the F-15SG and F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft, AH-64D 

Apache helicopters, Heron 1 unmanned aerial vehicles, and the inaugural participation of 

the A330 MRTT multirole tanker transport in an overseas exercise.

Regional Instability and Singapore’s Strategic Objectives

Although Southeast Asia has prospered since the end of World War II, enjoying relative secured and peaceful environment, there are numerous international 

issues that have the potential to possibly alter this chartered course of peace and 

tranquility. Unlike European states that are committed to the need for peace and 

security, the fragile security and fractured peace in Southeast Asia with underlying differences could result in regional instability.

Over the years, Asian defense expenditures have increased exponentially—a 

grave concern, particularly expressed by peacekeeping institutions such as the UN 

and liberal think tanks in the Indo-Pacific.9 Most recently, South Korea has been 

keenly expanding its multirole fighter acquisition policy, and Japan reiterated its 

commitment to expand its Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II training program 

in the light of developing situations in the region. Within the Association of 

Southeast Asian Nations, member nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia are 

keen to expand KAI KF-X combat aircraft development program, a joint South 
92 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Mishra

Korean and Indonesian venture, in an effort to formulate squadrons of this multirole fighter aircraft to further enhance their air superiority. Although some of 

the air assets negotiations/acquisitions orchestrated by regional economic groupings are genuinely focused on defending territorial integrity, should the relationships among these nations fall out, such modernizations could quickly turn into 

hoarding of air assets in an effort to secure military superiority.

Limiting the discussion to the South Pacific, rampant economic growth and 

the dire need to replenish natural resources to quench rising energy demands have 

created various disagreements among regional powers regarding resources and 

external boundaries with their economically and militarily inferior neighbors. 

One such example is the contestations of regional economies in the South China 

Sea. The Philippines and Australia recently announced acquisition of KAI T-50 

Golden Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fighter aircraft 

in an effort to further strengthen their air capabilities to counter any aggression in 

the Indian Ocean or the South China Sea. Other powers, like Indonesia, which 

have no claims in the South China Sea, are strengthening their defensive capabilities by acquiring AH-64 Apache twin turbo-shaft attack helicopters in an effort to defend their economic zones.

Singapore, due to its geostrategic location, size, and geography, will remain 

threatened from external forces due to its extensive dependence on global trade 

and dearth of natural resources. Learning lessons from past diplomatic and trade 

relationships, seemingly healthy bilateral and multilateral relations can quickly 

and dramatically turn sour.

RSAF: Learning the Right Lessons

With Singapore deploying its air assets to peacekeeping operations all across 

the globe, the focus for military and political leadership should be on strengthening RSAF maneuvering capabilities irrespective of its operational domain, which 

is possible through equipping the RSAF with adequate capabilities without compromising its current strength. This would enable the RSAF to maintain its operational mechanism during HADR operations, it would further assist air commanders in cost-effective maintenance of such air assets even when they are not 

in rigorous use. Military leadership should also focus on acquisition of air assets 

that have multiple uses, such as multi-domain air transport fixed-wing aircrafts, 

transport helicopters, and ISR UAVs, which are not only vital in combat scenarios 

but are also critical in HADR operations. Acquisition policies on aforementioned 

lines would further retain RSAF organizational and operational focus on national 

security, enabling the service to respond to HADR challenges and national security threats simultaneously.
Assessing Republic of Singapore Air Force’s Defensive Air Operations Capabilities

JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 93

Conclusion

In light of the fluid global insecurity of the post–Cold War era, the evolution 

in military tactics have potentially altered the course of airpower and opened new 

doors for air forces to operate in new unconventional and conventional combat 

environments. Particularly for an island nation such as Singapore, air assets play a 

critical role in the nation’s overall development. As the roles played by traditional 

air forces in HADR and unconventional military operations continue to expand, 

the RSAF too needs to adapt its operational mechanism without compromising 

its ability to fulfill Singapore’s strategic objectives. With Singapore relying on its 

airpower for defense, the RSAF must amend flexible operational mechanisms, 

enabling it to participate in global peacekeeping missions without compromising 

its national security and maintaining a firm equilibrium in its acquisition policies 

to effectively counter both conventional and unconventional threats without compromising operational continuity. 

Anant Mishra

Mr. Mishra is a researcher with specialization in unconventional tactics in complex environments. He is currently 

pursuing his research in counterterrorism and homeland security at the Institute of Forensic Science, Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, India.

Notes

1. Aaron Mehta, “Trump Appears to Call for Defense Spending Cuts,” Defence News, 17 October 2018, https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/17/trump-appears-to-call-for-defense

-spending-cuts/.

2. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Micheal Elliot Howard and Peter Paret (1832, repr., 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1989).

3. Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom, Joint Doctrine Publication 0-30: UK Air and Space 

Power, December 2017, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system

/uploads/attachment_data/file/668710/doctrine_uk_air_space_power_jdp_0_30.pdf.

4. Michael Burkly, Jack Crisler, Erich Hernandez-Baquero, et al., “Robotics and Autonomous 

Systems Industry” (industry study, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 2012), https://es.ndu

.edu/Portals/75/Documents/industry-study/reports/2012/es-is-report-robotics-autonomous

-systems-2012.pdf.

5. Mark Thompson, “The Strange Case of the (Nearby) but Missing F-22s over Libya,” Time, 

17 April 2011, http://nation.time.com/2011/04/17/the-strange-case-of-the-nearby-but-missing

-f-22s-over-libya/.

6. Don Rassler, “Drone, Counter Drone: Observations on the Contest between the United 

States and Jihadis,” CTC Sentinel 10, no. 1 (2017): 23–27, https://ctc.usma.edu/app/uploads/2017/01

/CTC-Sentinel_Vol9Iss1122.pdf.

7. Shang-Su Wu, The Defence Capabilities of Small States: Singapore and Taiwan’s Responses to 

Strategic Desperation (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
94 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Mishra

8. Ibid.

9. Richard A. Bitzinger, “A New Arms Race?: Explaining Recent Southeast Asian Military 

Acquisitions,” Contemporary Southeast Asia 32, no 1 (2010): 50–69, https://www.jstor.org

/stable/41288803.
JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020 95

BOOK REVIEW

China’s Maritime Gray Zone Operations edited by Andrew S. Erickson and Ryan D. Martinson, 

Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2019, ISBN: 978-1-59114-693-3.

China’s increasingly assertive—many would say aggressive—actions in the South China and 

East China Seas have captured the attention of the media and policy and academic communities. 

The most disconcerting aspect of those activities is that they have principally involved Chinese 

paranaval forces, with which the United States and its allies in the region have had little success 

confronting. This is an understudied topic and an urgent issue that must be addressed. Andrew S. 

Erickson and Ryan D. Martinson are faculty members of the China Maritime Studies Institute at 

the Naval War College and are experts on the Chinese navy and China’s maritime activities. They 

are thus uniquely qualified and well-positioned to organize a conference of experts to discuss issues 

related to this topic. China’s Maritime Gray Zone Operations is an outcome of such a conference.

Through the writings of 23 authors, this five-part edited volume presents this central thesis: 

China’s maritime operations in the South China and East China Seas, which prominently feature 

paranaval forces, have confounded the United States and its allies in the region. In particular, 

America’s allies are unable to successfully defend against Chinese paranaval forces.

One can draw many implications from this thesis. However, as indicated by the recommendations offered in the final section of the book, the authors agree on one in particular: China’s operations in the “gray zone” must be confronted, and the United States must be willing to adopt a 

tougher stance against Chinese operations, including the use of US naval forces, if necessary. On 

this point, Michael Mazarr’s analysis on how to deter Chinese actions deserves careful reading, 

because he outlines the deterrence possibilities and limitations for the United States and its allies. 

To support the volume‘s central thesis, the authors utilize the writings of Chinese naval and coast 

guard officers, government regulations, statements by senior Chinese officials, and real-life examples to explore the topic from the perspectives of history, strategy, doctrine, operations, and 

paranaval assets.

The product of this effort is a real contribution to our understanding of China‘s gray zone operations. In particular, the edited volume provides an excellent assessment of China’s paranaval 

capabilities. In this respect, the chapters in Parts 2 and 3 of the volume are strongly recommended 

for their clear and in-depth treatment of the history, organization, operations, and assets of the 

China Coast Guard and the People‘s Armed Forces Maritime Militia. In this manner, the authors 

are able to provide sound assessments of China’s policy, institutional, and material advantages and 

limitations in conducting gray zone operations.

However, China‘s Maritime Gray Zone Operations is not without limitations. As is the case with 

all edited volumes, especially those derived from conferences, there are variations in the quality of 

the chapters. In this vein, three chapters require greater scrutiny. The chapters by Katsuya Yamamoto and Tomohisa Takei have unfortunately acquired a propagandistic tone, which might have 

been unavoidable given the authors’ affiliations with the Japanese navy. By contrast, Adam Liff ’s 

analysis of Japanese responses to Chinese gray zone operations is far more measured, rigorous, and 

objective. In addition, it is unclear to this reviewer how Takei‘s analysis of the three types of operations (peacetime, gray zone, and war) “in terms of time and intensity” (p. 245) adds to our understanding of China’s gray zone operations.

The third chapter in question is Bernard Moreland’s comparative case study of Vietnam’s and 

the Philippines’ responses to Chinese gray zone operations. After studying his analysis, this reviewer is left wondering whether it would have been better to compare the Philippines’ responses 

with Japanese responses. These two countries have more in common with each other than with 

Vietnam. The most important shared characteristic is that they are both US allies. In addition, 

comparing the Philippines’ responses with those of Japan would allow a more comprehensive assessment of the maritime situations in East Asia. Moreover, such a comparison will show that US 
96 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  SPRING 2020

Book Review

support for its allies in the region has been inconsistent, which will result in a more sophisticated 

conclusion than the one drawn by the author.

This assessment of the three aforementioned chapters leads to perhaps the volume’s most glaring weakness. Aside from the two articles by former and present Japanese naval officers, the book 

does not present the perspectives of US allies and partners other than Japan. The volume’s contributions would have been enhanced by the perspectives of naval officers or relevant government 

officials representing the Philippines and Taiwan.

Despite these weaknesses, this is a book that should be recommended to both specialists and 

nonspecialists. The latter, in particular, should appreciate the lack of jargon and the chapters’ clarity 

of presentation.

As mentioned earlier, this book is a real contribution to our understanding of China’s gray zone 

operations. This reviewer hopes that it will motivate more analysts to study this topic with the aim 

of contributing to better-informed US policies for addressing the challenges presented by the 

Chinese paranaval forces.

Dr. John W. Tai
Wild Blue Yonder (ISSN 2689-6478) is Air University Press’s 

new online journal and forum focused on airpower thought 

and dialogue. The journal seeks to foster discussion and debate 

among air, space, and cyberspace practitioners. We want to hear 

your ideas on how to reshape the way we think about air, space, 

and cyberspace. Our articles bridge the gap between academic 

thought and practical operational experience.

Articles submitted to the journal must be unclassified, 

nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. The length and depth 

of articles can vary significantly, and we strive for a good balance 

between pieces of scholarly rigor and operational perspective. 

Submit all manuscripts to WildBlueYonder@hqau.af.edu.

The views and opinions expressed or implied in WBY are those 

of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the 

official sanction of the United States Air Force, the Department 

of Defense, Air Education and Training Command, Air 

University, or other agencies or departments of the US 

government or international equivalents.

Wild Blue Yonder

600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405, Room 143

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026

Tel (334) 953-5560 Fax (334) 953-1451

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/

Visit our social media:

https://www.facebook.com/WBYjournal/

https://twitter.com/WBY_Journal

https://www.linkedin.com/company/wild-blue-yonder-digital-journal/