Beware the Chinese Sea-Dragon
Chinese bellicosity in the near seas could usher in a new era of instability.
By Alex Ward Published 15 October 2012 17:46
Recently, Chinese assertiveness was brought to the fore by its sparring with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. In early September a conflagration of anti-Japanese protests and boycotts engulfed China after the Japanese government attempted to buy ownership of the disputed atolls from a Japanese businessman. The Chinese government responded forcibly, sending roughly 1,000 fishing vessels to the area, flanked by six frigates and several surveillance units.
However, this is not an isolated incident; such territorialism has long been visible in Beijing's regional strategy, particularly in its aggressive posture toward rival territorial claimants in the South China Sea dispute. Since the early 2000s, China has pursued an unwavering campaign to claim ownership of the sea's two disputed archipegalos – the Paracels and the Spratlys – that has embroiled it in countless diplomatic stalemates with the seven Southeast Asia states that also claim to hold sovereignty over the disputed reefs.
Combine this with its intense naval modernisation programme and alarm bells begin to ring. To some, it’s a harbinger of things to come; that China is increasingly working off a more imperial playbook. All across East Asia, from Tokyo to the Jakarta, the notion that Beijing is carving out its own Monroe Doctrine is taking on a new degree of salience.
To others, it can be argued that China is simply responding to American containment policies, especially at a time when Washington is embarking on a diplomatic and military “pivot” to East-Asia.
Either way, the statistics are staggering. According to SIPRI, an independent research institute, China’s annual military budget has skyrocketed from $30bn in 2000 to $120bn in 2010 – a 400 per cent increase.
Worryingly for Japan and the seven nations embroiled in the South China Sea dispute (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei), much of this spending has gone on a kaleidoscope array of naval weaponry.
Last month, China unveiled the Liaoning – its first aircraft carrier – with five more reportedly in development. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has also stepped up its rate of submarine commissionings some 260 per cent between 2003 and 2012, whilst simultaneously transforming its previously outdated battleship force into a vast fleet of modern frigates, destroyers and amphibious vessels.
Such an extensive naval overhaul has afforded China the hardware it needs to buttress its claims and flex its muscle in the East and South China seas. More importantly, the wholesale development of “anti-access/area-denial” capabilities – or in layman's terms, land-based weaponry designed to destroy naval units – poses a profound threat to American interests in the region.
With weaponry as sophisticated as the anti-ship ballistic missile – a missile capable of destroying US aircraft carriers – alongside heavy investment in land-based maritime strike aircraft, the concern is that China is gearing its navy towards one that can deter US intervention when things get heavy in territorial disputes. Many pundits are warning of China establishing the near seas as a zone of exceptionalism in which it has carte blanche to pursue its ambitions unhindered; a domain in which even the world’s largest heavyweight, the US, has no jurisdiction.

The disputes also encompass a pronounced economic dimension: Oil. Chinese analysts estimate that the waters surrounding the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands may hold as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, and the South China Sea 213 billion – vastly outstripping Saudi Arabia’s reserves of 265 billion. And with China recently becoming a net oil importer, the seas’ hydrocarbon offerings become all the more tantalising.
The vying for sovereignty over the seas’ hydrocarbon-rich waters is at the heart of these territorial disputes and has drawn China into numerous naval standoffs in the past couple of years, the Senkaku/Diaoyu being the latest in a long list of confrontations.
The net result of such assertiveness has led to sharp deteriorations in Beijing's relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and almost all of its individual member states. Furthermore, China’s routine reference to the infamous “nine-dashed-line” – which covers 90 per cent of the sea’s waters and all its islands – as the basis for its claims has sparked a spiralling arms race in Southeast Asia. Virtually every state embroiled in the dispute has responded to China’s modernisation programme with its own, with overall ASEAN defense spending set to increase from $24.5bn in 2011 to $40bn by 2016, according to the Economist.
Whilst apocalyptic predictions of China entering a momentous Pacific showdown with the US are entirely misplaced, if not ridiculous, China has developed an extensive near-seas capacity that provides Beijing the wherewithal to pursue its ambitions, whatever they may be.
Even though confrontations have so far been limited to standoffs between paramilitary ships and fishing vessels, China’s inexorable naval spending and the vehemence of its sovereignty claims undoubtedly cast a long shadow over its neighbours in the near seas.
And as the spectre of an expansionist China puts the wind in the sails of America’s “return” to East-Asia, Beijing may soon feel the pinch of its increasing regional isolation.
If it responds negatively to this, or if pushed, it will undoubtedly deal profound blows to the foundations of East-Asian stability, whilst putting the future of global security under thick clouds of uncertainty.
Watch this space.
Map source: NPR
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















16 comments
can't wait to see Japan kicks china's bud.. history is just waiting to repeat itself.
China does not have territory dispute with Indonesia. There is no real dispute with Taiwan either since the nine dashed line was first proposed by Repulic of China now controlling Taiwan. PR China inherited the claim and cannot possibly change that without devastating backlash from its own people. Besides, Chinese Communists won the Civil War (and the heart and mind of Chinese people) through acts of nationalism not socialsm or communism - a European idea that has no trace of history in China. Until 1957, socialism and communism were never pushed by Communist Party of China. After they consolidated power in China, they started listening to Russian and diasters followed. Red China has been attacked verbally by Repulic of China on Taiwan for losing Outer Mongolia - Repulic of Mongolia today. The territory claim by Repulic of China is much bigger than that of People's Republic of China. Check online you will find that. The Chinese Communists have been viewed by Chinese people are of cowardice and minions of America (some even claimed they are funded by CIA). Democarcy in mainland China now would usher in a ultranationalist government bending on revenge against Japan and England. Do you want to see that happening?
China does not have territory dispute with Indonesia. There is no real dispute with Taiwan either since the nine dashed line was first proposed by Repulic of China now controlling Taiwan. PR China inherited the claim and cannot possibly change that without devastating backlash from its own people. Besides, Chinese Communists won the Civil War (and the heart and mind of Chinese people) through acts of nationalism not socialsm or communism - a European idea that has no trace of history in China. Until 1957, socialism and communism were never pushed by Communist Party of China. After they consolidated power in China, they started listening to Russian and diasters followed. Red China has been attacked verbally by Repulic of China on Taiwan for losing Outer Mongolia - Repulic of Mongolia today. The territory claim by Repulic of China is much bigger than that of People's Republic of China. Check online you will find that. The Chinese Communists have been viewed by Chinese people are of cowardice and minions of America (some even claimed they are funded by CIA). Democarcy in mainland China now would usher in a ultranationalist government bending on revenge against Japan and England. Do you want to see that happening?
It is pretty poor journalism to report China's " enormous $120bn military budget in 2010" without providing a context.
Per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the Chinese in 2012 will spend 143 billion, compared to the U.S. 1,735 billion. For China, it is 2.0% of GDP, the U.S. is 2.5%. On 10-9-12 the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. will spend an estimated $1.45 trillion to produce and operate a new aircraft, the F-35 - more than any country, the U.S. included, now spends on its national defense annually. The U.S. spends as much on its military as the next 14 counties (mostly allies) combined.
Apologies, "enormous" was unnecessary - it's been amended.
Russia spent nearly $72bn on arms last year, Britain $62.7bn and France $62.5bn according to Sipri.
China's wage bill is substantial by normal standards - and a 400% increase is enormous enough
china's conduct in the south china sea is diplomatic suicide. alienating an entire continent whilst america is cashing in will do them nothing but harm in the future. despite their strong economy, economics isnt everything - especially when you're waving a stick at your partners.
china's conduct in the south china sea is diplomatic suicide. alienating an entire continent whilst america is cashing in will do them nothing but harm in the future. despite their strong economy, economics isnt everything - especially when you're waving a stick at your partners.
well, the US has nothing to shout about. Whatever Chinese ambitions may be, they cannot reach the heights of insolence of the persistent American interpretation/enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. "America for the Americans" ...i.e. all the Americas including renegade Cuba for the US! We are the masters!
The British have even less to shout about with their colonial possessionist policies towards the Malvinas and other islands they are happy to hand over lickarsingly to their masters: sod the inhabitants; all part of our long imperial training in violence.
Las Malvinas = Falkland Islands
They are not Spanish, nor Argentine.
They were given to the British by the Spanish many years ago, whilst the Spanish were committing genocide on the native people who inhabited what we now call Argentina.
Hence the Falklanders inhabited their lands before "Argentina" existed as a nation.
Britian protects the Falklanders as they wish it rather than possess the islands.
Prior to the Argentine invasion there was trade and growing trust between the two nations, which was destroyed by the Argentine military Junta.
well, the US has nothing to shout about. Whatever Chinese ambitions may be, they cannot reach the heights of insolence of the persistent American interpretation/enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. "America for the Americans" ...i.e. all the Americas including renegade Cuba for the US! We are the masters!
The British have even less to shout about with their colonial possessionist policies towards the Malvinas and other islands they are happy to hand over lickarsingly to their masters: sod the inhabitants; all part of our long imperial training in violence.
no wonder so many messages are repeated endlessly. it's almost impossible to get through the Mollon protectors of decency.
This article seem to be churned out by CIA backoffice.
Nothing but hysterical.
you simply cannot argue with those figures. Nobody's saying war is imminent, but its a dangerous precedent to set. Especially when cHINA goes around meddling in other countries waters, disrupting oil exploration and scaring off any country that steps in its way.
you simply cannot argue with those figures. Nobody's saying war is imminent, but its a dangerous precedent to set. Especially when cHINA goes around meddling in other countries waters, disrupting oil exploration and scaring off any country that steps in its way.
you simply cannot argue with those figures. Nobody's saying war is imminent, but its a dangerous precedent to set. Especially when cHINA goes around meddling in other countries waters, disrupting oil exploration and scaring off any country that steps in its way.
For the Chinese, those are their waters and other countries are the ones that have caused the troubles.