Connect with us

Analysis

Naval Strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the South China Sea Dispute

Naval Strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the South China Sea Dispute

“The Study of History lies at the foundation of all sound Military Conclusion & practice” (Alfred Thayer Mahan) 

Alfred Thayer Mahan, a U.S. naval officer and historian, was hailed by John Keegan as “the most important American strategist of the nineteenth century.” His seminal work, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783, garnered immediate acclaim, particularly in Europe. This was followed by The Influence of Sea Power Upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812, which cemented his global prominence.

Mahan believed that national greatness was intrinsically linked to sea power, emphasizing its economic utility in peace and control during war. He utilized historical examples to support his beliefs, advocating that the education of naval officers should be grounded in a thorough study of history. Drawing on the principles of Jomini, Mahan stressed the importance of strategic locations such as choke points, canals, and coaling facilities, along with quantifiable levels of fighting power in a fleet.

He argued that in peacetime, states should enhance production and shipping capacities while acquiring overseas holdings. However, he emphasized that the number of coal fuelling stations and strategic sites should be limited to avoid overextending the mother country’s resources. Mahan posited that a navy’s primary duty was to secure command of the sea, ensuring its own sea communications while denying the adversary access to them and, if necessary, regulating neutral trade. Achieving control of the sea required destroying or neutralizing the enemy fleet rather than targeting commerce. This strategy called for a concentration of naval forces composed of numerous well-manned capital ships, operated on the principle that the best defense is a strong offensive.

Mahan also contended that naval dominance, even temporarily, could be crucial in supporting land forces. He envisioned a transnational consortium using naval power to defend a multinational free trade system. His pre-submarine era ideas slowed the adoption of convoys as a defensive measure against the German U-boat campaign in World War I. By the 1930s, the U.S. Navy had developed long-range submarines to attack Japanese ships. However, during World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy, adhering to Mahan’s doctrines, used their submarines as fleet auxiliaries and failed to target American supply lines effectively.

Analyzing the Spanish-American War, Mahan noted the vast distances in the Pacific necessitated a battle fleet with long-range striking power. He believed that competent political and naval leadership were as crucial as geography in the development of sea power. His political analysis favored a transnational consortium over a single nation-state and aimed for free commerce rather than autarky. Mahan’s understanding of geography’s impact on strategy was tempered by his recognition of contingency’s role in shaping outcomes.

China’s Attraction to Mahan’s 

China’s naval establishment has long revered the writings of Alfred Thayer Mahan. It is no exaggeration to say that no single thinker has had a greater influence on Chinese maritime policy since post-revolutionary China began focusing on the sea in the late twentieth century. However, this is changing. Chinese naval strategists are increasingly drawn to the works of British naval thinker Sir Julian Corbett. This shift reflects and promotes a significant change in Chinese grand strategy, with implications for the United States and the entire Indo-Pacific region.

Mahan’s primary arguments, while innovative in the nineteenth century, are relatively straightforward. He asserted that great nations, even innately insular ones like the United States, have crucial maritime interests ranging from coastal defense to the protection of major commerce routes. Consequently, every truly great power must safeguard its interests from potential threats. For Mahan, this meant that a powerful nation must control the world’s oceans. He argued that such dominance could only be achieved by decisively defeating the enemy’s major fleet in battle. Therefore, commerce raiding and other fragmented naval operations were distractions that could never be strategically decisive. The concentration of forces and what Mahan termed “offensive defense” were essential to achieving “command of the seas,” which he saw as the primary goal of great power naval strategy.

The reasons for Mahan’s popularity among both American and Chinese navalists are evident. Mahan wrote for and about a rising power, the United States, which was realizing the need to secure key maritime interests to prosper and fulfill its destiny as a great power. Initially, he believed these interests were concentrated in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the sea lanes that would emerge with the opening of the Panama Canal. As his ideas evolved and U.S. interests extended beyond nearby waters, Mahan focused on the far seas, which he deemed critical to U.S. security and prosperity. This perspective appealed to American leaders such as President Theodore Roosevelt, who envisioned the United States as a true global superpower. Successive generations of American naval and political leaders saw that as the United States established itself as a global power, it required a navy capable of global operations.

Contemporary Chinese naval and political leaders are drawn to Mahan’s ideas for similar reasons. As market reforms spurred economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s, and China became more dependent on seaborne trade, Chinese officials recognized the importance of securing their maritime interests. Initially, these interests were framed in terms of China’s near seas: dominating the waters of the East and South China Seas, following a rough curve from Japan in the north, past Taiwan and the Philippines, down to Singapore and Malaysia, and preventing China from being hemmed in by the “First Island Chain.” Later, as China’s maritime trade routes globalized, Chinese naval strategists shifted their focus to the far seas, which were increasingly seen as vital to Chinese security and prosperity. Throughout these periods, Mahan’s works provided a conceptual foundation for considering the naval strategy best suited for a rising China. Although the Chinese naval establishment largely rejected Mahan’s ideas on decisive battles and removing the enemy fleet from the seas, they enthusiastically embraced his views on the necessity for a great power to have a navy capable of global operations.

Shift to Julian Corbett

Chinese naval strategists have inherited and adapted Mahan’s notion that a great state needs a fleet capable of seizing control of critical waterways and choke points from powerful adversaries, ensuring the security of global commerce on which its prosperity depends. They also internalized his view that a truly great power requires a truly powerful navy, capable of not just safeguarding its maritime interests but also projecting its influence globally. However, over the last decade or two, Chinese navalists have increasingly turned to the work of British naval historian Sir Julian Corbett.

Corbett agreed with Mahan on the importance of controlling vital sea channels for both military and commercial interests but differed on several key points. Most fundamentally, Corbett disagreed with Mahan’s near-exclusive emphasis on achieving ultimate dominance of the seas by annihilating the enemy’s naval might in decisive battles. Mahan’s basic idea of “naval strategy” was that comprehensive command of the seas was always the best method to achieve a great power’s broad strategic goals, accomplished by sweeping the enemy fleet away. Corbett, however, believed that each great power’s grand strategy necessitated a unique “maritime strategy.” While Mahan advocated for bringing the enemy’s main fleet to battle and destroying it in a decisive engagement, Corbett suggested that maritime strategy could also involve temporary and limited “control of the sea,” blockade, trade raiding and defense, or homeland defense, depending on the grand strategy being pursued. Corbett, like Clausewitz, believed that politics should always dictate military strategy, and that maritime policy should be based on a nation’s specific political goals, objectives, and limitations.

There are several reasons for Chinese navalists’ growing interest in Corbett’s work. Perhaps the most important cause has been a significant shift in China’s grand strategy over the last decade or so. For much of the post-revolutionary period, China’s strategy was one of geopolitical prudence, even isolationism, with priorities focused on defending the Chinese mainland, reintegrating lost territories, and pressing limited claims to disputed territories. However, in recent decades, China has effectively adopted a new grand strategy, best described as “offshore balancing.”

This strategy involves three main components:

  1. Securing Land and Maritime Borders: China is committed to securing its borders, including sovereignty over the waters along the new ten dash line in the South China Sea, disputed territories along its boundary with India, islands claimed in the East China Sea, and Taiwan. This also includes preventing the United States from threatening the Chinese mainland or intervening in territorial disputes involving China.
  2. Dominating Immediate Neighbors: China aims to dominate its immediate neighbors, both territorially contiguous ones (e.g., Nepal, Bhutan, and Vietnam) and those in the maritime region between its home waters and the Second Island Chain.
  3. Maintaining a Favorable Balance of Power: China seeks to maintain a favorable balance of power as far afield as the Third Island Chain (encompassing Alaska, Hawaii, and New Zealand), the Fourth Island Chain (linking Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Diego Garcia), and the Fifth Island Chain (stretching from Djibouti to South Africa, including the Persian Gulf). In this context, a favorable balance of power is one that is not dominated by a single state but leans toward China, implying an unfavorable balance for the United States.

Corbett’s theories align well with this grand strategy, as they emphasize the need for a flexible maritime strategy tailored to specific political goals. For China, this means developing the capability to:

  • Deter, Delay, and Weaken Potential U.S. Military Engagement: China aims to prevent, delay, and, if necessary, weaken any potential U.S. military involvement in maritime sovereignty issues or conflicts involving Taiwan. This strategy focuses on protecting China’s coastline and ports while establishing and defending sovereignty claims.
  • Deny U.S. Command of the Seas: China seeks to deny the United States control over commercially and strategically important waterways and chokepoints. This requires maintaining a persistent maritime presence in strategic locations, even under hostile conditions and for extended periods.
  • Counter India’s Naval Capabilities: China aims to prevent India from controlling or disrupting crucial sea routes and choke points leading to the Fifth Island Chain.

China has been implementing this maritime strategy for more than a decade. It has developed and deployed air, naval, and missile forces to create an anti-access/ area-denial (A2/AD) bubble encompassing the East China Sea, Taiwan, and the South China Sea, including its entire coastline and disputed islands. These forces include submarines, surface combatants, aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons, and anti-ship cruise missiles, supported by major naval bases in Qingdao, Ningbo, Zhanjiang, and Hainan Island, as well as installations in the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

Beyond these near seas defensive zone, China has deployed naval forces to dominate the seas up to the Second Island Chain. These forces include modern land-attack ballistic and cruise missiles capable of striking U.S. military sites on Okinawa and Guam, as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles with advanced re-entry vehicle technology, designed to deter, delay, and, if necessary, impair U.S. military operations, denying the U.S. control of the seas within the Second Island Chain.

China is also extending its reach beyond the Fifth Island Chain. It frequently deploys ships, including nuclear-powered submarines, in the Indian Ocean and surrounding areas, maintains a naval station in Djibouti, and controls port facilities in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, and Gwadar, Pakistan. Additionally, China reportedly has a military observation base on Myanmar’s Coco Islands in the Bay of Bengal, facilitating Chinese naval access to the Indian Ocean. Recently, China and Iran formed a strategic alliance, including joint training, research and weapon development, intelligence sharing, and Chinese investment in Iranian ports, adding to China’s “string of pearls.”

As China completes its offshore balancing infrastructure, Chinese carrier strike groups may begin to patrol the Indian Ocean regularly, challenging U.S. and allied naval dominance in the region. 

End Note

“Force is never more operative than what it is known to exist but is not brandished”

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s influence on maritime strategy, particularly in the context of the South China Sea, remains profound and enduring. Mahan, a prominent naval theorist of the late 19th century, emphasized the strategic significance of sea power in shaping global geopolitics. His ideas highlight the importance of controlling maritime routes and establishing naval dominance to secure national interests and global influence.

In the South China Sea, Mahan’s theories resonate deeply as nations vie for control over critical sea lanes and disputed territories rich in natural resources. Mahan’s concept of sea power has influenced modern maritime strategies in the region, prompting countries like China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and others to invest heavily in naval capabilities and infrastructure. China, in particular, has drawn from Mahan’s principles to assert its claims over almost the entire South China Sea. This has been achieved through a combination of naval expansion, island-building, and diplomatic maneuvering to strengthen its position. This strategy reflects Mahan’s emphasis on the strategic value of controlling key maritime chokepoints and establishing naval dominance to secure economic and military advantages.

Moreover, Mahan’s theories continue to shape international responses to China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea. The United States and its allies, adhering to Mahanian principles, have adopted strategies aimed at preserving freedom of navigation and countering China’s expansive claims through enhanced naval presence, multilateral partnerships, and support for regional allies. This approach underscores Mahan’s enduring relevance in contemporary naval doctrine, where the South China Sea has become a focal point of geopolitical competition and strategic maneuvering.

In essence, Alfred Thayer Mahan’s theories on sea power have profoundly influenced the strategic calculus in the South China Sea and continue to shape modern maritime strategies. His emphasis on naval dominance, control of maritime routes, and the strategic value of sea lanes remains pertinent as nations navigate complex geopolitical dynamics in one of the world’s most contested maritime regions. 

Analysis

Why Marcos South China Sea Policy is better than Duterte?

Why Marcos South China Sea Policy is better than Duterte?

The geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia is characterized by a complex interplay of national interests, historical tensions, and the strategic maneuverings of global powers. In this scenario, the South China Sea stands out as a particularly contentious region, with overlapping territorial claims and significant economic and security implications. As regional dynamics evolve, so too do the foreign policies of the countries involved. In this context, the Philippines has seen a marked shift in its approach from the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte to that of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. While Duterte’s tenure was noted for its conciliatory stance towards China, Marcos Jr. has adopted a more assertive policy, aligning more closely with the United States and emphasizing the defense of Philippine sovereignty. This shift reflects broader strategic calculations in response to China’s growing assertiveness and the need for stronger defense capabilities. The contrast between the two administrations provides a compelling case study in how nations balance between cooperation and confrontation in pursuit of their national interests.

Background: Duterte’s Approach

As the successor to President Aquino III, President Duterte adopted a markedly more cooperative stance toward China, seeking to avoid conflict over maritime sovereignty. Despite the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling largely favoring the Philippines, Duterte refrained from pursuing these convictions aggressively. Instead, he implemented pragmatic strategies rooted in Realpolitik and Rational Choice, shifting Philippine foreign policy from confrontation to a more nuanced approach. He preferred bilateral discussions over multilateral forums and supported China’s Belt and Road Initiative, aligning with his “Back to Domestic; Build, Build, and Build” campaign slogan focused on economic development and infrastructure. Duterte’s inward-looking strategy relied heavily on Chinese economic incentives to enhance the Philippines’ prosperity. This recalibrated foreign policy aimed for mutual benefits: China restrained the Philippines from assertively acting on the PCA ruling, while the Philippines gained economic and political advantages from Chinese infrastructure investments. Duterte’s approach strained the long-standing US-Philippines relationship, reflecting his vision for a multipolar world order and a distinct regional identity. This independent foreign policy garnered global attention and criticism, revealing the complex trade-offs and uncertainties involved. Consequently, the Philippines’ stance on SCS maritime and territorial claims softened under Duterte’s leadership.

Marcos Jr.’ Policy Shift

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has notably shifted Manila closer to the United States, diverging sharply from the path of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. Marcos appears to be the first Southeast Asian leader to decisively choose between the United States and China. Given the Philippines’ precarious position in the South China Sea and China’s growing regional dominance, Marcos Jr. may have concluded that maintaining a balance is no longer feasible and that, in the event of conflict, unwavering support from Washington is essential. The rising harassment of Philippine boats and marines stationed on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal by China has severely infuriated Marcos Jr., with incidents increasing recently.

In response to these challenges in the West Philippine Sea, President Marcos Jr. reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to maintaining Philippine sovereignty and defending its territory. At the 21st International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, he declared, “We will never allow anyone to detach it from the totality of the maritime domain that renders our nation whole.” Marcos emphasized that he has vowed to uphold this grave responsibility since his first day in office, stating, “I’m not going to give up. Filipinos are unyielding.” He reiterated that the government would make every effort to safeguard the Philippines’ territorial integrity in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 2016 Arbitral Award. “International law, not our imagination, is the source of the boundaries we draw on our waters,” he asserted.

Marcos highlighted that the Philippines defines its boundaries based on international law, not “baseless claims.” He outlined the country’s intentions to improve its defense capabilities and strengthen its ties with foreign nations during his keynote speech at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue. He emphasized that the Philippines would enhance its ability to safeguard its interests in both the global commons and its maritime domain as part of the Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept. “We will strengthen our ability to safeguard our interests in the global commons and in our own maritime domain as we work to preserve the rule of law in international affairs,” Marcos declared.

He stressed that diplomacy would continue to be a key component of building the Philippines’ defense capabilities. President Marcos also reaffirmed that ASEAN Centrality would remain a fundamental component of the country’s foreign policy. He noted that the Philippines would strengthen strategic alliances with Australia, Japan, and Vietnam, in addition to its relationship with the United States. The country would also seek closer ties with partners like the Republic of Korea and India. Marcos pointed out that cooperative efforts involving a small number of governments with common interests could “build into pillars that support the architecture of regional stability.” He mentioned pursuing trilateral cooperation in the Celebes Sea with Indonesia and Malaysia and expanding collaboration in the exclusive economic zone with Australia, Japan, and the United States.

Over the past year, the Philippines’ 200-mile exclusive economic zone has been repeatedly targeted by China’s coast guard and allied fishing vessels, further straining relations between the two countries. Marcos stated that he has been in communication with “friends in the international community” and has met with his defense and security officers to ensure peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. “They have offered to help us with what the Philippines requires to protect and secure our sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction,” he said.

The deterioration of ties with China coincides with Marcos’s efforts to strengthen defense ties with the US. Beijing is displeased with his expanded US access to military sites in the Philippines and the inclusion of joint exercises involving air and sea patrols over the South China Sea. The US-Philippines treaty obliges both nations to defend one another in the event of an attack, covering coastguard, civilian, and military vessels in the South China Sea.

Key Actions Under Marcos Jr.

Marcos Jr. emphasized Manila’s right to utilize South China Sea energy resources without first engaging China in a statement released on December 1, 2022. He vowed to “fight” for the rights that belong to his country. Given that the Philippines depend largely on imported fuel, his comments highlighted the urgency of exploring for oil and gas in the strategically significant sea. In the face of a more divided Southeast Asia, Marcos Jr. has resorted to striking a balance between his relations with China and the United States. However, sustaining strategic ambiguity is becoming more and more of a difficult balancing act every day. Beijing is applying more and more pressure. Chinese rocket debris was taken by force from the Philippine Navy in November by the Chinese coast guard.

In order to restart the nation’s slow economic growth, the new president desperately had to acquire investments amidst a severe financial crisis made worse by the pandemic. Beijing might be a trustworthy source, but Chinese investments and the sovereignty risks they pose are touchy political subjects. Protests by the general public against Chinese influence are not unusual in the Philippines, and they may pose a threat to the legitimacy of Marcos Jr.’s administration.

Asia’s strictest foreign investment regulations, found in the Philippines, limit foreign ownership in numerous areas to 40%. This restriction complicates potential agreements on oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea, even if the Philippines and China were to reach an understanding. Although both nations have shown interest in collaborating with non-governmental organizations for joint exploration, disputed claims have prevented Manila’s PXP Energy Corp, which holds exploration permits in the contested Reed Bank, from finalizing a mutually beneficial deal with China’s National Offshore Oil Corp.

The situation is further complicated by increased U.S. engagement with the Philippines. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. allowed U.S. forces access to four additional Philippine military facilities, raising the total to nine. Under the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), U.S. troops are permitted to rotate indefinitely for joint training, equipment prepositioning, and infrastructure development, including runways, fuel storage, and military housing. This move aligns with the Biden administration’s strategy of strengthening a regional security network to counter China, as well as with Philippines efforts to enhance its external defense, particularly in the South China Sea.

China reacted strongly to this development, particularly since two of the new U.S. locations are near Taiwan and southern China. Beijing accused the Philippines of providing staging areas for U.S. military operations, thereby compromising Chinese security. In response, Marcos stated that his administration has no plans to grant the U.S. access to additional military bases. He emphasized that China’s aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea initially prompted the U.S. military presence in several Philippine camps and locations. At a press conference with foreign correspondents in Manila, Marcos clarified, “The Philippines has no plans to create any more bases or give access to any more bases.”

When questioned about whether the presence of U.S. forces had provoked Chinese actions in the South China Sea, Marcos maintained that American troops were there in response to China’s actions. He cited incidents where Chinese coast guard ships used water cannons and lasers to block Philippine vessels. “These are reactions to what has happened in the South China Sea, to the aggressive actions that we have had to deal with,” he stated. China, on the other hand, blamed the Philippines for instigating conflicts by intruding into its territorial seas and violating an alleged agreement to remove an old Philippine navy vessel stationed at the disputed Second Thomas Shoal. Marcos denied knowledge of any such agreement and declared it void if it ever existed.

Marcos emphasized that the Philippines must take more concrete actions beyond lodging protests concerning incidents in the South China Sea. He referred to a recent event where the Chinese coast guard blocked a routine troop supply run to the Second Thomas Shoal, resulting in a serious injury to a Philippine sailor. While Marcos condemned this as an illegal action, he noted that it did not constitute an armed attack. Despite filing numerous protests, he stressed the need for more substantial measures.

End Note

The contrast between the South China Sea policies of Duterte and Marcos Jr. signify the evolving nature of the Philippines’ approach to maritime sovereignty and international diplomacy. Duterte’s strategy prioritized economic gains through cooperation with China, often at the cost of territorial assertiveness and strained traditional alliances. In contrast, Marcos Jr.’s policy shift reflects a robust defense of Philippine sovereignty, reinforced by stronger ties with the United States and other regional allies. This strategic realignment addresses the immediate challenges posed by China’s assertiveness while positioning the Philippines as a proactive player in maintaining regional stability and upholding international law. As the geopolitical landscape continues to shift, the Marcos administration’s balanced yet assertive stance may provide a more sustainable and secure path for the Philippines in the contentious waters of the South China Sea.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Philippines Air Force Joins Multi-Nation War Games in Australia to Counter China

Philippines Air Force Joins Multi-Nation War Games in Australia to Counter China

In an unprecedented move, the Philippines Air Force has embarked on its first overseas deployment in over six decades. This historic event sees the Philippines joining forces with U.S. and Australian fighter jets for combat practice in northern Australia amidst escalating tensions with China in the South China Sea. This strategic maneuver underscores the Philippines’ commitment to enhancing its defense capabilities and strengthening alliances in response to regional security challenges.

The Pitch Black War Games

The Pitch Black war games, a significant international air combat training activity, took place in Australia’s sparsely populated Northern Territory from July 12 to August 2, 2024. This large-scale exercise included four Philippine FA-50 fighter jets and 162 personnel among approximately 140 aircraft and over 4,000 personnel from 20 nations.

This year’s iteration was the largest in the exercise’s 43-year history, exposing participants to complex scenarios utilizing advanced aircraft and battlespace systems. Aircraft and personnel from the Philippines, Spain, Italy, Papua New Guinea, and embedded personnel from Fiji and Brunei participated for the first time, joining aircraft from countries such as France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and embedded personnel from Canada and New Zealand.

Aircraft operated primarily from RAAF bases in Darwin and Tindal in the Northern Territory, with additional tanker and transport aircraft at RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland. Exercise Pitch Black is Australia’s premier activity for international engagement, held every two years to build stronger ties with like-minded nations.

A Historic Milestone

This deployment marks a significant moment in the history of the Philippines Air Force, as the first time since 1963 that it has taken combat aircraft abroad. On July 10, 2024, four FA-50s and 162 personnel from the Philippine Air Force arrived at RAAF Base in Darwin, marking the first-ever deployment of the country’s fighter jets for drills outside the Philippines.

Royal Australian Air Force Air Commodore Pete Robinson expressed his honor at Australia being chosen for this significant deployment, highlighting the historic nature of the event. The decision to deploy four FA-50s instead of the initially planned six was made to retain more aircraft in the Philippines for domestic operational requirements.

The deployment of the FA-50s to the Pitch Black war games demonstrates the Philippines’ commitment to engaging in multinational military cooperation and improving its own defense capabilities. The FA-50s, which are light combat aircraft, are well-suited for training exercises that involve both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat scenarios. By participating in these exercises, the Philippines Air Force can gain valuable experience and insights into modern combat tactics and technologies.

Enhancing Capabilities

The vast airspace of the Northern Territory provides an ideal environment for enhancing a wide range of capabilities, focusing on the tactical execution of large force employment and offensive counter air and land operations in a multinational coalition environment. The war games involve not only dog fighting but also the use of advanced radar and missile systems for long-range engagements.

Philippine fighter jets worked alongside advanced aircraft such as the F-35A Lightning II, EA-18G Growler, and Su-30MKI Flanker, tackling complex problems against simulated adversaries and ground threats. This includes air-to-air refueling, reconnaissance, and airlift operations, enhancing the capabilities of all participating forces to operate together, improve readiness, and strengthen regional partnerships.

The FA-50s’ participation in these exercises allows the Philippine pilots to train in an environment that mimics real combat conditions. This exposure is crucial for building confidence and proficiency in handling advanced aircraft and executing complex missions. The experience gained from these exercises will be invaluable in guiding the Philippines’ ongoing military modernization efforts.

A United Front

The U.S. F-22 stealth fighter and Australia’s F-35A and F-18 are among the combat aircraft taking part in these war games. The U.S. sent F-22 jets from the 15th Wing based at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, to train alongside Australia’s F-35A jets, improving interoperability between their armed forces.

Fast-jet pilots from the U.S. Marine Corps conducted training in offensive counter air, defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, and strike mission sets during the day and night, demonstrating the depth of interoperability between the two nations.

The collaborative efforts in the Pitch Black war games highlight the importance of interoperability and joint operations among allied forces. By training together, these forces can develop a better understanding of each other’s tactics, procedures, and capabilities. This level of cooperation is essential for effective multinational operations, especially in complex and dynamic combat environments.

The participation of the Philippines in this multinational exercise not only enhances its own defense capabilities but also strengthens its ties with key allies. The ability to operate seamlessly with U.S. and Australian forces is a strategic advantage for the Philippines, particularly in the context of regional security challenges.

The South China Sea Dispute

The South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China has been a source of tension for many years. The crux of the dispute lies in overlapping territorial claims over the South China Sea, a strategic and resource-rich waterway. China’s extensive claims have led to several direct confrontations, including a clash at the Second Thomas Shoal on June 17, 2024, causing injuries to Filipino navy personnel and damage to military boats.

The encounters between the two nations have grown increasingly tense as Beijing continues to assert its claims to shoals in waters that Manila insists are within its exclusive economic zone. Despite these tensions, both sides have affirmed their commitment to deescalate tensions without prejudice to their respective positions. However, the geopolitical landscape in the South China Sea remains complex and fluid, posing significant challenges to regional stability and international law.

China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea, such as the construction of artificial islands and the deployment of military assets, have heightened tensions with neighboring countries, including the Philippines. The strategic importance of the South China Sea, which serves as a major shipping route and is believed to contain significant oil and gas reserves, makes it a focal point of regional and global interest.

China’s Reaction

China’s reaction to the Pitch Black war games was significant. Following the announcement of the exercise, China launched drills in the Taiwan Strait in response to what it perceived as “separatist acts.” These drills involved heavily armed warplanes and staged mock attacks, demonstrating China’s ability to control the seas and prevent foreign involvement.

China’s military maneuvers are a clear signal of its willingness to assert its territorial claims and counter any perceived threats to its interests. The timing of these drills, just days after the announcement of the Pitch Black war games, underscores the geopolitical tensions in the region. China’s actions reflect its broader strategy of demonstrating military strength and deterring foreign intervention in what it considers its sphere of influence.

The Philippines’ participation in the Pitch Black war games can be seen as a response to China’s assertiveness. By strengthening its defense capabilities and engaging in multinational exercises, the Philippines is signaling its determination to protect its territorial integrity and uphold international law. This strategic approach aims to deter potential aggression and contribute to regional stability.

The Philippines’ Defense Strategy

Despite having a mutual defense treaty with the United States, the Philippines is increasingly looking to its own air force and navy as the first line of defense. This shift in strategy is in response to the perceived threat from China, with Manila making concerted efforts to bolster its defense capability.

The Philippines’ defense strategy includes preserving holdings in the disputed sea, deterring coercive actions against Philippine vessels and citizens, and compelling Chinese recognition of and compliance with the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration Award. This multifaceted approach involves strengthening the country’s military capabilities, enhancing regional alliances, and leveraging international legal mechanisms to protect its interests.

In addition to strengthening its military capabilities, the Philippines is forging stronger defense ties with other countries. For instance, the Philippines and Japan recently signed a crucial military agreement permitting the deployment of their forces on each other’s soil, bolstering defense ties between Tokyo and Manila. This agreement, known as the Reciprocal Access Agreement, enhances interoperability and facilitates joint training and exercises, contributing to regional security.

The Philippines’ defense strategy also involves increasing investments in military modernization. The ongoing modernization program aims to equip the Armed Forces of the Philippines with advanced hardware and capabilities to address a wide range of security threats. This includes the acquisition of multirole fighter jets, radars, missile systems, frigates, helicopters, and submarines.

Modernization of the Military

The Armed Forces of the Philippines has embarked on a 15-year modernization program that started in 2012 and will continue through 2027. This program, also known as the Revised Armed Forces Modernization Act, aims to strengthen the AFP’s capability to address counterterrorism and internal threats.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently approved a significant military procurement plan, estimated at around $35 billion over the next ten years. This includes acquiring multirole fighter jets, radars, frigates, missile systems, helicopters, and the country’s first submarine fleet.

The modernization program is divided into three phases: Horizon 1 (2013-2017), Horizon 2 (2018-2022), and Horizon 3 (2023-2027). Each phase focuses on different aspects of capability development, with Horizon 3 emphasizing the acquisition of advanced systems and platforms to enhance the country’s defense posture.

Key elements of the modernization program include:

Multirole Fighter Jets: The acquisition of multirole fighter jets, such as the FA-50s, enhances the Philippines’ air defense and strike capabilities.

Frigates and Corvettes: The procurement of additional Jose Rizal-class frigates and missile corvettes improves the country’s naval capabilities, enabling it to protect its maritime interests and conduct various naval operations.

Missile Systems: The acquisition of missile systems, including

surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, enhances the country’s deterrence and defensive capabilities.

Submarine Fleet: The development of a submarine fleet provides the Philippines with a strategic asset for underwater defense and deterrence.

Regional Defense Relationships

The Philippines is actively seeking to establish more regional defense relationships. Recent defense agreements with Australia and Japan indicate a commitment to enhancing interoperability and strengthening defense ties. These agreements contribute to the Philippines’ defense strategy by enhancing its ability to respond to various security threats.

The agreement with Australia, known as the Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOVFA), facilitates the rotation of Australian forces in the Philippines and vice versa. This agreement enhances joint training, interoperability, and capacity-building initiatives, strengthening the defense ties between the two countries.

Similarly, the Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan allows for closer defense cooperation, joint exercises, and logistical support. This agreement reflects the growing strategic partnership between Japan and the Philippines, driven by shared concerns over regional security and the need to uphold international norms.

The Philippines is also engaging in defense cooperation with other countries in the region, such as South Korea, India, and Vietnam. These partnerships involve joint training exercises, defense dialogues, and capacity-building initiatives, contributing to the overall security architecture of the region.

Implications and Future Developments

The Philippines’ participation in the Pitch Black war games is a significant development in its defense strategy, signaling its commitment to enhancing operational readiness and capabilities. This move also underscores the Philippines’ willingness to collaborate with other nations in maintaining regional security.

By participating in these war games, the Philippines is sending a strong message to other countries in the region, including China. This could potentially deter aggressive actions in the South China Sea and contribute to regional peace and stability. However, it could also escalate tensions, highlighting the need for careful management to prevent conflict.

The experience gained from these exercises will be invaluable in guiding the Philippines’ ongoing military modernization efforts. As tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea, the country is demonstrating its commitment to enhancing its defense capabilities and ensuring preparedness for any eventualities.

The Philippines’ strategic approach involves strengthening its military capabilities, enhancing regional alliances, and leveraging international legal mechanisms to protect its interests. By doing so, the Philippines aims to deter potential aggression, uphold international law, and contribute to regional stability.

The future of the South China Sea dispute remains uncertain, with ongoing geopolitical tensions and competing territorial claims. However, the Philippines’ proactive stance and commitment to defense modernization signal its determination to navigate these challenges and safeguard its sovereignty.

In essence, the Philippines’ participation in the Pitch Black war games is a historic milestone that reflects its evolving defense strategy and commitment to regional security. By enhancing its capabilities and strengthening its alliances, the Philippines is positioning itself as a key player in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and beyond.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Philippines Accuses Chinese Ships of Blocking Medical Evacuation

Philippines Accuses Chinese Ships of Blocking Medical Evacuation

I. Introduction

The South China Sea has been a hotbed of territorial disputes for years, with several countries including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei claiming overlapping parts of the maritime region. The area is rich in natural resources and is a vital commercial waterway, making it a strategic point of contention. One such disputed area is the Second Thomas Shoal, known as Ayungin Shoal in the Philippines and Renai Reef in China. The shoal is within the 200-nautical mile (370km) exclusive economic zone of the Philippines but is also claimed by China.

II. Details of the Incident

On July 10, 2024, the Philippines accused Chinese vessels of trying to block the evacuation of a sick soldier from an “illegally grounded warship” at Second Thomas Shoal. The Philippine Navy stated that the patient was taken from the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting vessel that was run aground at Second Thomas Shoal 25 years ago, to Camp Ricarte Station Hospital in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. The Philippine coastguard claimed it had “faced numerous obstructing and delaying manoeuvres” by its Chinese counterpart but “remained steadfast”. This incident marked another escalation in the ongoing territorial dispute between the two nations.

III. Philippine Government’s Response

The Philippine government has strongly condemned the alleged actions of the Chinese vessels. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) lodged a diplomatic protest against China, calling the incident a “blatant infringement of Philippine sovereignty”. The incident has also stirred up nationalist sentiments among the Philippine public, putting pressure on the government to take a tougher stance against China.

IV. China’s Reaction

China rebuked the Philippines, accusing it of “deliberately misleading” the international community. In a statement, the China Coast Guard said it had allowed the Philippines to evacuate the ill person under “humanitarian considerations” and had “monitored and verified” their actions in accordance with the law. Chinese coastguard spokesman Gan Yu stated that the “relevant Philippine parties ignored the facts, maliciously hyped up [accusations], and deliberately misled international cognition”. He affirmed that China had “indisputable sovereignty” over the Nansha Islands, also known as the Spratly Islands, including Renai Reef and its surrounding waters.

V. International Reactions

The escalating tensions between China and the Philippines have drawn international attention and elicited responses from various leaders and experts. Collin Koh, a maritime affairs expert at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, suggests that a second legal defeat for China in the international court would not reflect well on China’s reputation. He believes that the seven years since the last international ruling is a long time, and a new case building on the previous one would inject renewed vigor into global scrutiny of China’s actions in the South China Sea.

US President Joe Biden has warned China that the US will defend the Philippines in case of any attack in the disputed South China Sea. This reiteration of the US’s “ironclad” defense commitment to the Philippines underscores the geopolitical implications of the dispute.

VI. Historical Context

The South China Sea dispute is not a recent development but has deep historical roots. The region has been a point of contention for centuries, with various Southeast Asian nations asserting their claims over different parts of the sea. The modern dispute, however, can be traced back to the 20th century when several nations began to assert their sovereignty over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea.

The Second Thomas Shoal, in particular, has been a flashpoint in the dispute. The Philippines grounded the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting naval vessel, on the shoal in 1999 to reinforce its claim. China, however, views this as an illegal occupation and has maintained a constant maritime presence around the shoal.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in a case against China’s claims in the South China Sea. The court declared China’s “nine-dash line” claim, which covers nearly the entire South China Sea, as having no legal basis. However, China rejected the ruling, and the decision did not lead to a significant change in the status quo.

VII. Analysis

The ongoing dispute between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea has significant geopolitical implications. For China, asserting its claims in the South China Sea is a matter of national pride and a demonstration of its growing global power. It is also strategically important due to the sea’s rich natural resources and its importance as a commercial waterway.

For the Philippines, the dispute is about protecting its territorial integrity and its rights to exploit the resources within its exclusive economic zone. The recent incident could further strain Philippines-China relations and push the Philippines to seek stronger security ties with other countries, particularly the United States.

The involvement of international leaders and organizations like the US, ASEAN, and Japan further complicates the issue. The US, in particular, has been vocal in its support for the Philippines and its opposition to China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea. This could potentially escalate tensions between the US and China, two of the world’s superpowers.

VIII. Conclusion

The South China Sea dispute continues to be a complex issue involving territorial claims, national pride, and international law. The recent incident involving the Philippines and China is just the latest in a series of escalating tensions in the region.

As tensions escalate, it is crucial for all parties involved to engage in peaceful dialogue and negotiations to prevent further conflicts. The role of international law and multilateral institutions is also critical in resolving these disputes and ensuring the preservation of the region’s rich biodiversity.

However, the resolution of the South China Sea dispute is not just about resolving territorial claims. It is also about managing the rise of China as a global power, maintaining regional stability, and upholding the rules-based international order. The way this dispute is handled could set a precedent for other territorial disputes around the world and shape the future of international relations in the Indo-Pacific region.

Continue Reading

Trending