China’s Strategy in the South China Sea: India’s Concern
Dr. Reeta Kumari
Researcher, Swadeshi Shodh Sansthan (China Desk)
Abstract
China’s strategy in the South China Sea involves a complex blend of historical assertions, military development, economic pursuits, and calculated diplomacy to strengthen its control over this strategically important maritime zone. Central to this approach is the “Nine-Dash Line”, a territorial claim that overlaps with the sovereignty claims of several Southeast Asian countries. To enforce its position, China has constructed artificial islands, stationed military forces, and extended administrative authority over disputed areas. These moves aim to safeguard crucial shipping routes, exploit abundant natural resources, and extend China’s influence far beyond its coastline. Alongside military initiatives, Beijing uses legal justifications, diplomatic channels, and economic pressure to reinforce its claims while steering clear of open conflict, especially with regional neighbors and the United States. Ultimately, China’s activities in the region reveal a broader agenda to reshape the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, undermine U.S. dominance, and assert itself as a leading global power. This ongoing strategic maneuvering has sparked significant concern over regional peace, maritime freedom, and the integrity of international law.
Keywords: China, South China Sea, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), strategy, natural resources, resource control, military istallations, sovereignty asseration.
Introduction
The South China Sea stands at the heart of complex geopolitical tensions and growing rivalries. Rich in marine life, it contributes about 12% of the global fish catch, serving as a crucial source of livelihood for millions across surrounding nations. Moreover, the region holds vast, largely untapped energy reserves, estimated at roughly 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas-offering substantial economic potential to coastal states. Beyond its natural wealth, the South China Sea is a vital artery of global trade. It facilitates more than one-third of worldwide maritime shipping, with goods worth over 3 trillion dollars passing through its waters each year. As a key route linking Asian economies with those in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, the sea’s strategic value has made it a focal point for overlapping territorial claims and maritime disputes, underscoring its global economic and political importance.
The historical intricacies of the South China Sea stretch back centuries, with numerous regional actors such as China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, laying claim to various islands and reefs. These overlapping claims have resulted in a deeply entangled web of disputes, influenced by differing historical narratives, national pride, and strategic considerations. The involvement of major global powers, notably the United States, further amplifies the complexity of the situation. China asserts territorial sovereignty over two island groups and maritime rights in the South China Sea. The modern foundation of these claim’s dates back to a statement by Premier Zhou Enlai in August 1951, during the Allied peace treaty discussions with Japan, where he affirmed China’s sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. This position was reinforced in September 1958 amid the Jinmen crisis, when China issued a declaration asserting rights over territorial waters, the first time it explicitly connected territorial sovereignty with maritime entitlements. Since the mid-1970s, Chinese government statements have consistently echoed similar language, typically asserting that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Spratly Islands (or South China Sea islands) and the surrounding waters”.
Another area of uncertainty involves the notion of historic rights that China may assert in the South China Sea. Article 14 of China’s 1998 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) law states that the law does not affect the “historic rights” enjoyed by the People’s Republic of China. However, while some Chinese policy experts have suggested that parts of the South China Sea constitute historic waters, the law does not clarify what these rights entail or their geographical boundaries. Furthermore, no other Chinese legal document has elaborated on the nature or extent of these rights. Another source of ambiguity stems from the “nine-dashed line” that appears on Chinese maps of the region. Initially drawn in the 1930s, it was first published on an official Republic of China (ROC) map in 1947 and has been featured on maps issued by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1949. Yet, neither the ROC nor the PRC has ever specified the legal meaning or basis of this line under international law. Even in May 2009, when China included a map with the nine-dashed line in a diplomatic note to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), it did not define the line’s legal significance or explicitly claim historic rights, despite some scholars interpreting it as such.
Amid tensions, a recent incident involving a Chinese coast guard vessel using a water cannon against a Philippine ship in contested waters has drawn international attention. Far from being an isolated event, it underscores the persistent friction and volatility in the region. The episode also highlights the coordination between China’s military forces and its suspected maritime militia, offering insight into Beijing’s broader strategic approach and the growing risks that define the maritime landscape.
China’s Past Approach to Managing Its South China Sea Claims
When a state faces a territorial dispute, it generally has three broad approaches at its disposal. The state refrains from threats or force and signals a willingness to compromise: it may hand over control of the contested area or abandon its claim altogether. The state turns to coercive diplomacy or open force, aiming either to pressure its rival into a more advantageous settlement or to seize the disputed territory outright. The state keeps its claim alive yet neither offers concessions nor resorts to force. Its goal is essentially to preserve the status quo while continuing to assert ownership. While scholarly work often focuses on cooperation and escalation because they mark moments of possible settlement or war, the delay tactic is actually the option states choose most frequently. Several factors make delay attractive: a militarily weaker state can stall to gain time for bolstering its capabilities and improving its future bargaining or combat position. If the dispute seems impossible to resolve quickly, delay serves as a pragmatic form of conflict management. Holding on without conceding allows a state to entrench its presence. Over time, continuous occupation and visible acts of administration carried out by civilian or military agents can reinforce a state’s legal claim under international norms. Thus, delaying offers a way to safeguard a claim, buy time, and strengthen on-the-ground control without immediately risking escalation.
Viewing the South China Sea Through a Geopolitical Lens
The significance of the South China Sea transcends its immediate geography, shaping broader geopolitical shifts and symbolizing a complex interplay of ambitions, challenges, and opportunities. As a pivotal strategic arena, it attracts calculated manoeuvres from major powers like the United States and China, each advancing distinct strategies and agendas.
The United States, through initiatives such as the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines and Freedom of Navigation Operations, aims to preserve regional stability and reinforce adherence to international law. In contrast, China has taken a more assertive path, marked by military expansion and the reinforcement of its territorial claims, reflecting its goal of expanding regional dominance. Meanwhile, other influential players such as Russia, Japan, and India also have strategic stakes in the South China Sea, contributing further to the region’s already intricate geopolitical dynamics.
Shifting geopolitical trends offer important clues about the future trajectory of disputes in the South China Sea. Rising nationalism, changing alliances, advancements in maritime technology, and transformations in the global economy are all key factors that will influence the region’s path forward. The dynamics of the South China Sea are deeply connected to broader patterns of global power and influence, rather than existing in isolation. Yet, the South China Sea is not solely a hotspot for conflict, it also presents meaningful opportunities for cooperation and shared prosperity. Ongoing territorial disputes, environmental concerns, and piracy remain pressing issues, but joint regional efforts, shared development projects, and coordinated security frameworks have the potential to reshape the region. Turning the South China Sea from a flashpoint of tension into a platform for regional unity and collaboration is not only possible, but within reach.
In recent years, satellite images have highlighted China’s growing land reclamation activities in the South China Sea, involving both the expansion of existing islands and the creation of entirely new ones. Alongside depositing sand on coral reefs, China has built infrastructure such as ports, airstrips, and military facilities especially in the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it maintains around twenty and seven outposts, respectively. Woody Island, in particular, has been heavily militarized with the deployment of fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, and radar systems. China’s strategy in the South China Sea (SCS) is a multifaceted approach that combines military, economic, legal, and diplomatic tools to assert its claims and expand its influence. This strategy has significant implications for regional stability, international law, and global maritime commerce.
Importance of South China Sea for China
The South China Sea is a vital maritime corridor linking the Indian Ocean with the East China Sea through the Strait of Malacca. It facilitates a substantial portion of global trade estimated at up to 80% by volume and 70% by value making it essential for major economies such as China and India. In addition to its trade significance, the region is believed to contain abundant oil and natural gas reserves, which contribute to the ongoing territorial disputes among several nations. The sea also supports rich fishing grounds, crucial for the food security of the densely populated Southeast Asian nations. Territorial and maritime disputes in this area involve China, Brunei, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. A key source of tension is China’s extensive claims over the sea, represented by the controversial “nine-dash line”. China’s militarization of various islands in the region has heightened concerns about regional security and the freedom of navigation. Given its strategic importance and natural resources, any instability or disruption whether to trade routes or resource extraction could have significant economic and geopolitical consequences for the broader Indo-Pacific region.
There are several reasons which address the importance of South China Sea for China. The incresing involvement and controll of China in this sea says it all. Main motives of the Chinese government are:
- Strategic Objectives
China claims approximately 90% of the SCS, demarcated by the “Nine-Dash Line”, a boundary that overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of several Southeast Asian nations. Despite the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that invalidated these claims, China continues to assert sovereignty over the area, often through unilateral action. The SCS is rich in natural resources, including an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.Control over these resources is a significant motivator for China’s forcefulness in the region. The SCS is a critical maritime corridor for global trade.By controlling this region, China can project power beyond its shores, monitor foreign naval activities, and potentially restrict access to vital sea lanes during conflicts.
- Military and Paramilitary Tactic
Between 2013 and 2016, China undertook extensive land reclamation projects, creating artificial islands equipped with military installations, including airstrips, radar systems, and missile platforms. This “Great Wall of Sand” enhances China’s ability to monitor and control the region. China employs “cabbage tactics”, encircling disputed islands with layers of naval, coast guard, and fishing vessels to assert control and prevent access by other nations. The “Great Underwater Wall” is a network of underwater sensors and unmanned vehicles designed to monitor submarine and surface vessel movements, enhancing China’s maritime domain awareness.
- Legal and Diplomatic Manoeuvres
China has dismissed the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, preferring bilateral negotiations where it holds more leverage over smaller nations. China has used trade restrictions as a tool of coercion. For instance, after the Philippines challenged China’s claims legally, Beijing imposed import bans on certain Philippine goods, causing significant economic losses.
- Regional and Global Implications
China’s actions have led to increased tensions with neighbouring countries, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, who contest China’s expansive claims and militarization of the region. The United States and its allies have conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) to challenge China’s claims and ensure open sea lanes. However, these actions have sometimes escalated tensions.
Concerns for India
China’s forceful actions in the South China Sea, including expansive territorial claims and the militarization of the region, have become a source of concern for India. These concerns largely arise from the potential disruption of vital maritime trade routes, the increasing presence of the Chinese navy, and the broader implications for regional peace and stability. The South China Sea serves as a crucial conduit for Indian trade, and any Chinese control over these waters could adversely affect India’s economic interests. Moreover, China’s construction and militarization of artificial islands in the region heighten security risks for India, particularly in the context of the Indian Ocean. Many analysts view China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea as part of a broader effort to expand its regional influence, which may directly challenge India’s strategic ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, China’s “String of Pearls” strategy its network of port and infrastructure developments around India’s periphery is perceived as a potential attempt to encircle India and gain a strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean. The resource-rich nature of the South China Sea further adds to the tensions, as China’s aggressive posture could lead to competition and even conflict with regional players, including India. In summary, India regards China’s manoeuvres in the South China Sea with significant apprehension, viewing them as threats to its maritime security, economic interests, and its broader geopolitical standing in the region.
Conclusion
China’s strategy in the South China Sea is a complex blend of military assertiveness, legal manoeuvring, and economic coercion aimed at establishing dominance over a critical maritime region. This approach has significant implications for regional stability, international law, and global trade. Understanding China’s multifaceted strategy is essential for policymakers and stakeholders involved in Indo-Pacific affairs.
The South China Sea’s intricate geopolitical landscape shaped by historical tensions, overlapping territorial claims, and the strategic ambitions of regional actors makes the risk of a limited military confrontation particularly concerning. The recent clash between China and the Philippines starkly illustrates how swiftly tensions can escalate. To prevent such conflicts, it is essential that all stakeholders engage in meaningful dialogue, build mutual trust, establish mechanisms to de-escalate tensions, and uphold international legal norms.
In summary, the South China Sea stands at a crucial intersection of regional and global geopolitics, embodying a complex array of competing interests and strategic calculations. Its path forward remains open to influence, determined by the decisions, strategies, and involvement of both regional players and international powers. Gaining a deep understanding of the current dynamics and identifying avenues for collaboration and shared success are essential for managing the intricate geopolitical environment. Shaping the future of the South China Sea will demand foresight, prudent leadership, and a steadfast dedication to peace and stability.
Refernces
Arrington, MSgt Marc (2021), China’s Quest to Maximize Status and Sovereignty in the South China Sea”, Marine Corps Gezette.
Chettri, Kushboo (2022), “Contestation over South China Sea and India’s Stake on it”, Sikkim Express.
Fravel, M. Taylor (2011), “China’s Strategy in the South Chin Sea”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 33(3), pp. 292-319.
Iftikhar, Zainab (2022), “Emergence of Act East Policy: A threat to the China’s Imperlism in Asian Pacific Region”, Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 3(4).
Jize, Qin & Cui Haipei (2011), “Guidelines agreed with ASEAN on sea disputes”, China Daily.
Thayer, Carl (2011), “Aggressive assertiveness: Beijing ratchets up pressure in South China Sea”, Defense News (12 June).
Wani, Ayjaz (2020), “Beijing’s imperialism casts a shadow from South China Sea to the Pamirs”, Observer Research Foundation.
