The post-World War II international order is unraveling as conflicts emerge across the globe. We are witnessing the rapid formation of a multipolar world, characterized by power struggles and geopolitical realignments. One of the most volatile flashpoints in this new global landscape is the South China Sea, a vital maritime corridor fraught with escalating tensions and territorial disputes. The region’s significance, both strategically and economically, raises a critical question: Is war imminent in the South China Sea?

Historical Context

The South China Sea, a semi-enclosed sea bordered by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, has long been a region of contestation. The disputes primarily revolve around territorial claims, with several countries asserting sovereignty over various islands, reefs, and maritime zones. China’s claims, delineated by the controversial nine-dash line, encompass approximately 90% of the South China Sea, overlapping with claims by other nations. Historically, these disputes have roots in colonial-era maps and international agreements. The ambiguity of these historical documents has left room for conflicting interpretations, fueling modern-day tensions. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sought to clarify maritime boundaries, but it did not resolve the overlapping claims in the South China Sea. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines, invalidating China’s extensive claims. However, China rejected the ruling, continuing its activities in the region. As Greg Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, stated, “China’s rejection of the ruling has set a dangerous precedent that undermines international law.”

The Current Situation

Today, the South China Sea is a theater of intense geopolitical competition. China’s rapid militarization of artificial islands, aggressive maritime patrols, and extensive fishing activities have alarmed neighboring countries and the international community. These actions have prompted a range of responses, from diplomatic protests to increased military presence by other claimant states and external powers, notably the United States. Admiral John C. Aquilino, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, remarked, “China’s activities in the South China Sea threaten the sovereignty of other nations and undermine regional stability.”

China–Philippines Tensions

In July 2024, China and the Philippines held a crucial meeting to ease escalating tensions after a confrontation in the disputed South China Sea resulted in injuries to Filipino navy personnel and damage to two military boats. This incident heightened fears of a wider conflict involving Manila’s treaty ally, the United States.

Joint Exercise by China and Russia

In July 2024, China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and the Russian Navy conducted a joint exercise called “Joint Sea 2024” near Zhanjiang, China. The drills included joint live-fire air and missile defense exercises, showcasing the growing military cooperation between China and Russia in the region.

Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) Exercise

In Hawaii, the HADR phase of the Rim of the Pacific 2024 exercise concluded, involving nine countries, including the U.S., Japan, Canada, and South Korea. This exercise covered urban search and rescue, healthcare emergency management, and logistical support for humanitarian assistance, highlighting the importance of multinational cooperation in addressing non-military challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Perils of Escalation

Excessive armament and defense posturing in the South China Sea have reached dangerous levels, creating a volatile environment where a minor incident could escalate into a full-scale conflict.

Arms Race

China’s military expansion in the South China Sea remains a critical concern. Recent developments include the construction of artificial islands equipped with airstrips, missile systems, and other military infrastructure. These actions allow China to project power across the maritime region, challenging the freedom of navigation and sovereignty of neighboring claimant nations. In response, its neighbors in the SCS region have boosted their defense budgets and acquired advanced naval and aerial capabilities. The Philippines has prioritized defense spending to address regional challenges. In 2024, the defense budget reached $4.5 billion (USD), a substantial increase. After two decades of efforts, the country is close to finalizing negotiations with Sweden to acquire fighter jets. The specific choice remains undisclosed, but Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen is among the top contenders. It also acquired the BrahMos supersonic anti-ship cruise missile system. The BrahMos missile system has a range of 290 km and a speed of Mach 2.8-3, providing a never-before-seen capability to the AFP. It will greatly enhance the Philippines’ coastal defense capabilities.

Additionally, the Philippine government has approved a substantial budget for its decade-long defense acquisition plan called “Horizon 3.” This initiative aims to enhance domain awareness, connectivity, maritime and aerial deterrence, command and control, and intelligence capabilities. The fighter jet requirements have evolved, but exact details on the total number and cost remain undisclosed. These efforts reflect the Philippines’ commitment to safeguarding its interests in the region and effectively addressing security challenges. Over the past decade, Japan has undergone a significant transformation in its defense and security policies. It aims to double its defense spending by 2027, signaling a proactive approach to security challenges. The budget increase is driven by growing concerns over Russian, Chinese, and North Korean activities in the region. Japan is shifting from a purely defensive posture to one that emphasizes readiness for combat. Recent changes in its defense spending include acquiring long-range missiles capable of striking enemy territory. It shows that the traditional model of U.S.-Japanese military cooperation, where Japan acted as a “shield” and the U.S. as the “spear,” is evolving.

Indonesia is bolstering its security posture in the South China Sea due to increased Chinese incursions into its exclusive economic zone. The Indonesian military is expanding capacity for sustained deployments around the Natuna Islands, establishing military bases in the region. Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia’s next president, is unlikely to alter this trajectory, given his previous role as Jokowi’s defense minister. Additionally, Jakarta’s interest in procuring YJ-12E missiles aligns with its plan to enhance coastal defense and deter maritime incursions in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the South China Sea. These developments reflect Indonesia’s concerns about China’s assertive claims in the area.

Vietnam’s modernization efforts prioritize several key areas, including the enhancement of artillery systems, missile defense capabilities, and the expansion of its military aircraft inventory. Notably, Vietnam has planned to procure 12 units of Su-57 aircraft from Russia, a move aimed at bolstering its aerial combat capabilities. By integrating Su-57s alongside its existing fleet of Su-27 and Su-30 multi-role aircraft, Vietnam demonstrates a strong commitment to modernizing its Air Force inventory. Vietnam’s dedication to modernizing its defense capabilities underscores its determination to deter hostile forces in the region. As one of the fastest-growing countries in Southeast Asia in terms of defense investment, Vietnam is actively strengthening its military readiness. This regional arms race heightens the risk of unintentional clashes that could escalate into broader conflicts. The presence of advanced missile systems, warships, and aircraft increases the potential for deadly encounters.

Defense Deals and Alliances

The recent defense pact between Germany and the Philippines represents a significant milestone in their bilateral relations. Its purpose is to enhance defense cooperation, allowing joint military exercises, training, and information sharing. Against the backdrop of China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, the Philippines seeks to strengthen its defense capabilities. Germany’s involvement underscores its commitment to a rules-based international order and freedom of navigation. Economically, the pact opens avenues for technology transfer, equipment procurement, and capacity-building. Beyond bilateral ties, this strategic partnership aligns with regional security dynamics, emphasizing the importance of Indo-Pacific stability and cooperation among like-minded nations. Additionally, other international arrangements such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and the AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States) pact signify a growing coalition of countries concerned with maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific. The Quad, comprising the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, focuses on promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific through military cooperation, joint exercises, and economic initiatives. AUKUS, meanwhile, enhances defense ties, particularly in developing nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, thereby boosting the region’s deterrence capabilities against potential Chinese aggression.

The United States Factor

The United States remains a pivotal player in the South China Sea, acting as a key security guarantor for many surrounding states.

Security Guarantees

The U.S. has longstanding security commitments to allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. Through mutual defense treaties and security agreements, the U.S. provides military support and conducts joint exercises to enhance regional defense capabilities. This presence serves as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence and assertiveness. Admiral Philip S. Davidson, former commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, emphasized, “Our commitment to our allies and partners in the region is unwavering. We stand ready to ensure peace and stability.”

Military Drills

The U.S. conducts regular Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea, challenging China’s expansive maritime claims. These operations involve U.S. naval vessels sailing through disputed waters to uphold international law and ensure open sea lanes. Additionally, the U.S. engages in extensive military drills with regional allies, showcasing its readiness to defend its interests and those of its partners. As of 2024, the U.S. military conducted 107 large-scale exercises in the South China Sea and its surrounding areas, involving countries like Japan, the UK, India, France, Canada, and Germany. These exercises demonstrate the U.S. commitment to regional security and its strategic goal of preventing any single power, particularly China, from dominating the Eastern Hemisphere.

Strategic Ambitions

The U.S. aims to maintain its status as the world’s preeminent superpower by preventing any single nation, particularly China, from dominating the Eastern Hemisphere. This involves a delicate balance of deterrence and diplomatic engagement. U.S. global engagements, from Europe to the Middle East, reflect its broader strategy of preserving a favorable balance of power and safeguarding international norms. Upholding international norms, including UNCLOS, ensures a level playing field. Rather than framing it solely as competition, the focus is on advancing a rules-based order. By doing so, the U.S. shields its allies and partners from unilateral actions, reinforcing regional stability.

Implications of Middle Eastern Conflicts

The potential implications of a regional conflict in the Middle East on the South China Sea (SCS) are multifaceted. Although these two regions are geographically distant, their interconnectedness can shape global dynamics in significant ways. A significant conflict in the Middle East, such as one arising from the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, could divert U.S. attention, resources, and military assets away from the Indo-Pacific region, including the SCS. The ramifications of such a diversion could be profound, leading to various strategic and geopolitical shifts in the South China Sea.

Power Vacuum

A diversion of U.S. focus to the Middle East could inadvertently create a power vacuum in the South China Sea. This power vacuum might embolden China to assert its influence more aggressively, taking advantage of the reduced American presence to further its territorial claims and military activities. This situation could be exacerbated by the fact that China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea are already a source of significant tension among regional claimants and the international community. Dr. Elizabeth Economy, a former senior foreign advisor for China, highlights the potential consequences of such a shift: “A diversion of U.S. resources to the Middle East could allow China to consolidate its gains in the South China Sea, potentially leading to a more aggressive posture that could destabilize the region further.” Regional actors, including other claimant nations such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, might recalibrate their strategies based on perceived shifts in U.S. commitment. This recalibration could lead to new alliances or realignments as countries seek to balance against China’s increased influence. Additionally, the potential for increased Chinese military activities and assertiveness could lead to miscalculations and unintended escalations, further complicating the security environment in the South China Sea.

Strategic Competition

China’s strategic competition in the South China Sea could intensify if U.S. attention is diverted to the Middle East. With U.S. military capabilities stretched thin, Beijing might seize the opportunity to solidify its control over disputed areas and expand its maritime presence. This could result in heightened regional tensions and a more assertive Chinese stance. Increased Chinese activities in the region could lead to heightened tensions among claimant states and the broader international community. This might prompt regional powers to bolster their military capabilities and form new alliances in response to perceived Chinese aggression. The potential for a renewed arms race and heightened strategic competition could further destabilize the South China Sea.

Regional Instability

The instability in the Middle East could have ripple effects on the South China Sea, complicating efforts to maintain peace and stability. The interconnected nature of global politics means that conflicts in one region can influence dynamics elsewhere, including the South China Sea. The potential for regional instability could exacerbate existing tensions and create new security dilemmas. The potential for increased instability in the South China Sea could lead to a greater likelihood of clashes between regional and external actors. This could further complicate diplomatic efforts and exacerbate existing disputes, making it more challenging to achieve a peaceful resolution to the South China Sea conflicts.

The Role of Regional Powers

Regional powers in the Indo-Pacific are pivotal in shaping the dynamics of the South China Sea. Their strategies, alliances, and policies significantly influence the overall stability of the region.

Australia’s Strategic Interests

Australia’s strategic posture in the South China Sea is guided by its commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The Australian government has consistently supported the principles of international law and freedom of navigation. In response to rising tensions, Australia has engaged in joint military exercises with the United States and regional allies, reinforcing its strategic presence. Dr. Andrew Shearer, former Director-General of the Office of National Assessments, notes, “Australia’s strategic interests in the South China Sea are deeply intertwined with our commitment to regional stability and the rules-based international order. We must work closely with our allies to ensure that international norms are upheld.” Australia’s involvement extends to diplomatic efforts as well. Australia has advocated for the peaceful resolution of disputes through multilateral forums and has supported initiatives that promote transparency and dialogue among claimant states.

India’s Role

India, though geographically distant, plays a crucial role in the South China Sea’s security landscape. As a key partner in the Quad, India contributes to regional security through strategic dialogues and joint exercises. India’s growing naval capabilities and its focus on maintaining maritime security in the Indo-Pacific align with its broader strategic interests. According to Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, former Indian diplomat, “India’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific, including the South China Sea, reflects our strategic interest in maintaining a balance of power and promoting a rules-based order. Our cooperation with regional partners is essential for ensuring stability and security in the region.” India’s maritime strategy includes expanding its naval presence and participating in joint naval exercises with other Quad members. This enhances its capacity to address security challenges and support regional stability.

Regional Diplomacy

Managing the South China Sea’s tensions requires a comprehensive approach that balances military deterrence with diplomatic engagement. Building trust among claimant nations, promoting dialogue, and adhering to international legal principles are essential to preventing conflict and ensuring long-term regional stability.

Multilateral Frameworks

Regional multilateral frameworks such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) play a crucial role in mediating disputes and fostering cooperation. The ASEAN-led Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit provide platforms for dialogue, confidence-building measures, and the development of a Code of Conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea. Although progress has been slow, these forums are vital for maintaining open channels of communication and reducing the risk of conflict.

Bilateral Agreements

Bilateral agreements, such as the recent China-Philippines deal on the Scarborough Shoal, offer a pragmatic approach to managing specific disputes. While these agreements do not resolve broader territorial claims, they help to de-escalate tensions and prevent confrontations. Diplomatic efforts should focus on replicating such arrangements across other disputed areas. The China-Philippines agreement demonstrates a pragmatic approach to managing disputes while preserving broader strategic interests, ultimately reducing the risk of conflicts when faithfully implemented.

The Economic Dimension

The South China Sea’s economic significance cannot be overstated. It is a global trade route, with approximately $3.37 trillion worth of trade passing through its waters annually. This includes vital energy supplies, such as oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), which are crucial for the economies of many countries. A report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) highlights that the South China Sea is a critical route for energy shipments, with around 40% of global LNG trade transiting through the region. Any disruption to this route, whether due to conflict or heightened tensions, would have far-reaching consequences for the global economy. China’s role as the “world’s factory” means that any conflict could disrupt supply chains, affecting everything from electronics to consumer goods. Moreover, Taiwan is a key supplier of semiconductors, essential for modern technology. Disruptions here would have cascading effects on industries worldwide, from automotive to consumer electronics. Japan, South Korea, and other regional economies would also face significant challenges, further exacerbating global economic instability.

Long-Term Scenarios and Humanitarian Implications

The long-term scenarios for the South China Sea are influenced by various factors, including geopolitical shifts, economic trends, and evolving strategic dynamics.

Potential Scenarios

Several scenarios could unfold in the South China Sea, ranging from continued diplomatic stalemate and low-level skirmishes to more serious military confrontations. The trajectory will depend on the actions of key stakeholders, including China, regional claimants, and major global powers. The outcome of the South China Sea disputes will have far-reaching implications for regional and global security. A stable resolution could reinforce the rules-based international order and promote cooperative security frameworks. Conversely, continued tensions or conflict could undermine regional stability and impact global trade and security.

Humanitarian Costs

The South China Sea region is densely populated, home to approximately 1.4 billion people. Any conflict would result in severe humanitarian crises, including displacement, loss of livelihoods, and deteriorating living conditions. The international community would be called upon to provide substantial humanitarian aid and support to mitigate these impacts. The World Food Programme (WFP) has highlighted the potential humanitarian impacts of conflict in densely populated areas. “Conflicts in heavily populated regions can lead to widespread humanitarian crises, including food insecurity and displacement. The South China Sea is no exception, and the international community must be prepared to respond to potential humanitarian needs,” says WFP spokesperson David Beasley.

End Note

The South China Sea remains one of the most contentious and strategically significant regions in the world. As claimant states and global powers navigate this complex landscape, the imperative for diplomatic engagement, legal adherence, and strategic cooperation remains paramount. The collective efforts of regional and global actors will shape the future of the South China Sea, influencing not only the stability of the Indo-Pacific but also the broader international order. The path forward requires a commitment to dialogue, respect for international law, and a shared vision for a stable and secure maritime environment. As the international community grapples with the challenges posed by the South China Sea, the principles of cooperation and adherence to global norms will be crucial in averting conflict and fostering a peaceful resolution. As the former Secretary of State expressed, the South China Sea serves as a critical test for the international community. It challenges our ability to uphold a rules-based order while ensuring that all nations can pursue their interests peacefully and in accordance with international law. By prioritizing diplomacy, fostering cooperation, and upholding international norms, the global community can work towards a stable and secure future for the South China Sea, ensuring that it remains a conduit for peace, prosperity, and mutual respect among nations.

The United States has announced a major overhaul of its military command in Japan to deepen coordination with Japanese forces amid growing security challenges posed by China. The revamp was revealed following security talks in Tokyo between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and their Japanese counterparts, Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa and Defense Minister Minoru Kihara. “The United States will upgrade the U.S. Forces Japan to a joint force headquarters with expanded missions and operational responsibilities,” Austin stated after the “2+2” talks. He emphasized that this will be the most significant change to U.S. Forces Japan since its inception and one of the strongest improvements in U.S.-Japan military ties in 70 years.

The ministers announced in a joint statement that the new command structure will align with Tokyo’s plans to establish a joint command for its forces by March 2025. This overhaul is part of several measures to address an evolving security environment, with China identified as the “greatest strategic challenge” in the region. The joint statement criticized Beijing’s “provocative” behavior in the South and East China Seas, its joint military exercises with Russia, and the rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal. The ministers accused China of attempting to reshape the international order for its own benefit, at the expense of others.

In response, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson did not immediately comment. However, Austin clarified that the command upgrade was not specifically in response to any threat from China but was intended to enhance the effectiveness and coordination of U.S. and Japanese forces. Japan hosts approximately 54,000 American troops, hundreds of U.S. aircraft, and Washington’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier strike group. The new command in Japan will be headed by a three-star general, with the possibility of appointing a four-star commander in the future, similar to the arrangement in South Korea.

For the first time, the ministers discussed “extended deterrence,” the U.S. commitment to use its nuclear forces to deter attacks on allies. This discussion is particularly sensitive for Japan, the only country to have suffered atomic bomb attacks, which has consistently advocated for nuclear non-proliferation. The allies also expressed concern over Russia’s procurement of ballistic missiles from North Korea for its war in Ukraine, and the potential transfer of weapons of mass destruction or missile technology to Pyongyang. North Korea has escalated tensions by vowing to “totally destroy” its enemies in case of war.

Austin and Kihara also met with South Korean Defense Minister Shin Won-sik, signing an agreement to institutionalize trilateral cooperation through initiatives like real-time sharing of North Korean missile warning data and joint military exercises. The Biden administration has been pushing for closer ties between Tokyo and Seoul, despite historical tensions dating back to Japan’s occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945. The U.S. also seeks to leverage Japanese industry to ease pressure on U.S. weapons manufacturers, who are stretched by demand from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Collaborative efforts include advancing missile co-production and enhancing supply chain resilience and repair capabilities for ships and aircraft.

However, the flagship project to boost production of Patriot air defense missiles in Japanese factories has faced delays due to a critical component shortage from Boeing. Despite this, Blinken and Austin are set to hold further security talks with the Philippines, another key Asian ally, as part of efforts to counter China’s growing assertiveness. During the regional summit in Laos, Blinken reiterated the U.S. and its partners’ commitment to maintaining a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” This comes as the U.S. faces increasing regional challenges from China’s military expansion and strategic moves. Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa highlighted the critical juncture facing the region, emphasizing the need to strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance to defend the existing international order. Austin echoed these sentiments, pointing to China’s coercive behavior and North Korea’s nuclear threats as major security concerns.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rebuked the U.S. and Japan’s joint statements, accusing them of falsely accusing China and making irresponsible remarks about its military development and defense policy. The ministry reiterated China’s commitment to peaceful development and defensive national defense policies. The joint statement also highlighted the allies’ deep concern over Russia’s growing ties with North Korea and China. These developments come amid escalating global tensions, with Russia bolstering its military relationships in response to Western sanctions and its invasion of Ukraine. Austin emphasized that the new U.S. command structure in Japan aims to facilitate deeper interoperability and cooperation on joint bilateral operations during both peacetime and contingencies. This will enhance intelligence coordination, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cybersecurity capabilities.

Japan has accelerated its military buildup, increasing joint operations with the U.S. and South Korea, while also strengthening its domestic defense industry. The allies have been working on various arms industry collaborations, including missile co-production and maintenance agreements for U.S. Navy ships and Air Force aircraft. The upgraded U.S. command in Japan will provide the necessary capabilities to address the strategic challenges posed by China and North Korea. This move is expected to significantly bolster the defense posture of both nations in the Indo-Pacific region. As Blinken and Austin continue their diplomatic and security engagements in Asia, the focus remains on reinforcing alliances and enhancing regional stability. The U.S. and Japan’s commitment to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific underscores the importance of their partnership in navigating the complex security landscape.

With the evolving security environment and the increasing strategic threats from China, the U.S. and Japan are poised to deepen their military cooperation and strengthen their defense capabilities. This historic upgrade of the U.S. command in Japan marks a pivotal moment in the alliance, setting the stage for greater coordination and resilience in facing future challenges.

“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.