Chinese Aggressions

No freedom of navigation operations yet: Trump administration wrestles with posturing in the South China Sea
By Christopher Diamond

Since Donald Trump took over as commander in chief, the U.S. Navy has not sailed within 12 miles of China’s man-made islands in the disputed South China Sea. 

But a top U.S. Navy commander in the Pacific says that doesn’t mean Navy ships are reluctant to confront China and exercise the right to sail in international waters, reports Bloomberg.
“We just went through a change in administration,” Pacific Fleet Commander Adm.​ Scott Swift said at a Monday briefing in Singapore. 

“I am not surprised that process has continued in a dialogue as the new administration gets its feet on the ground and determines where would be appropriate to take advantage of these opportunities and where we may want to wait.”
Freedom of navigation operations have not been conducted in the South China Sea since ​Trump took office. 

FONOPS — routine under President Barack Obama — were intended to assert that waters remain open despite a growing Chinese military presence on the disputed islands. 

As the U.S. has put its presence in the disputed territory on hold, China continues to build airstrips on the islands, even launching its first domestically built aircraft carrier last month.
For months, the Navy's leadership has wanted to take a more aggressive stance and test China’s claims in the region. 

The carrier Carl Vinson and its strike group were originally being considered by the Navy for operations in the South China Sea before making news as part of the U.S. response to further nuclear weapon and long-range missile tests by North Korea.
In March, U.S. Pacific Command requested permission for a Navy warship to sail within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, a disputed reef in the South China Sea that has been claimed by both China and the Philippines. 

But the March request, as well as two similar requests made in February, were turned down by Pentagon officials without ever making it to the White House, according to The New York Times.
“We just present the opportunities when we have a ship in the area and there is an area of interest,” said Adm.​ Swift, adding that there has been “no change in policy” regarding the territorial disputes.
The lack of action in the region has caught many off guard as it seemed clear that the Trump administration wanted a tough stance toward Beijing.

Then-candidate ​Trump criticized President Obama on the campaign trail for being weak on China in the South China Sea.
During Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearings, he stressed that China needs to be denied access to the islands. 

But China’s actions remain unchallenged as the White House has turned to Beijing for assistance amid growing tensions with North Korea.
An unnamed official from the U.S. Defense Department told The New York Times that they believed a request for ​naval operations within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands was exactly the kind of thing Trump would be looking for. 

The same official went on to say Defense Secretary​ James Mattis is putting the FONOPS on hold as part of a broader review of “the American security posture around the world.”
The Spratly and Paracel island chains in the South China Sea have been at the center of territorial disputes from 1947. 

In recent years, China, Vietnam and the Philippines have claimed territory in the region, while the United States has allocated significant military resources towards upholding free navigation of the waters.
While it seems clear that the White House is looking to work with Xi Jinping on a range of geopolitical issues, it remains unclear whether the administration will respond to the ongoing territorial disputes.

Passing a Chinese Maritime 'Trump Test'

If the past is any guide, China may test the new administration early on. Beijing's “maritime militia” could play an important part.
By Andrew S. Erickson

China’s Leninist leadership has rightly been termed the “high church of realpolitik.” 

Beijing’s leaders believe that even small changes in foreign leaders, correlation of forces, or the relative balance of power have important significance. 

If they appear in flux, China probes for opportunities. 

If meeting minimal or manageable resistance, it then pushes further to gain ground. 

Given the particular uncertainty concerning President Donald Trump’s outlook and policies, and Beijing’s indignation at his statements already regarding both mainland China and Taiwan, he may even face probing without the typical “grace period” arguably accorded his predecessors. 

How Trump handles such pressure will reverberate across the Asia-Pacific and around the world.
In recent years, China has tested each new American president. 

The past two faced an early challenge: George W. Bush with increasingly aggressive aircraft intercepts that triggered the April 2001 EP-3 crisis, Barack Obama with the March 2009 Impeccable incident. 

China appears to engineer tensions or activities to assess a president’s position in an area of its interest and to attempt to alter his decision-making to Beijing’s preferences. 

While motivations are hard to prove, Trump and his team must certainly prepare for the possibility that at some point Beijing—having never “forgotten” whatever statements and actions may accumulate despite its objections—will push back in a manner that effectively poses a test.
If the past is any guide, Chinese leaders may test the new administration early on. 

While a trial could take many forms, the last two presidential tests revolved around U.S. surveillance operations in international airspace and waters, to which Beijing continually objects. 

Given current Sino-American friction points, one possible scenario involves the South China Sea, U.S. Navy vessels, and China’s Maritime Militia. 

Such a “Trump Test” could involve China’s maritime militia harassing the operations of U.S. warships or surveillance ships in hope that he could be pressured to reduce such activities, thereby accommodating Chinese sovereignty promotion efforts. 

It might include not only direct tests of U.S. resolve, but also that of America’s regional allies and partners and its commitment toward them; particularly given uncertainty over how the Trump Administration intends to handle longstanding alliances and partnerships. 

China may see this as an opportunity to weaken the alliance system, which it opposes vehemently. 

Here the East and South China Seas are equally likely arenas, with Japan, Vietnam, and Indonesia among the leading potential targets. 

Either way, the Obama Administration’s failure to publicly acknowledge the asymmetric challenge of China’s Maritime Militia on its watch contributes to a looming disconnect in which Beijing and Washington or one of its allies or partners may (eventually) be headed for a tense encounter or incident at sea, without sufficient preparations for its effective management.
Beijing’s broader South China Sea strategy includes advancing disputed claims where it can, delaying resolution of issues it cannot yet settle in its favor, and coercing potential opponents while limiting escalation. 

Beijing’s longstanding opposition to key principles of international air-and-sea-related law and its growing assertiveness in the South China Sea make it view ‘unapproved’ American activities there as contravening vital interests. 

To implement that strategy with as little American resistance as possible, and thereby further its unresolved land feature and maritime sovereignty claims without escalating to major power war, it is employing not one but three major sea forces.
China’s Maritime Militia is its Third Sea Force of “blue hulls,” after its Navy of “gray hulls” and Coast Guard of “white hulls.” 

Increasingly, these forces operate together, with blue hulls operating forward and white and gray hulls backstopping them. 

Collectively, these are “gray zone” operations: conducted to alter the status quo, and employing coercion as necessary, but without resorting to war.
China’s irregular sea force is one of the most important—yet most under-considered—factors affecting U.S. security interests in the South China Sea. 

These Chinese “Little Blue Men” are roughly equivalent at sea to Putin’s “Little Green Men” on land.

Exposing Fiction before it Becomes Fact—Trump’s Gulliver Scenario:
In a range of South China Sea scenarios, military-controlled Maritime Militia would likely play a frontline role. 

Here’s a scenario that Washington must be well prepared for, well in advance: In Jonathan Swift’s novel Gulliver’s Travels, the tiny but tenacious Lilliputians trap and truss the far larger protagonist Lemuel Gulliver on the shore of their small Pacific island. 

In broadly analogous fashion, Beijing might seek to confuse, disrupt, or stymie a U.S. destroyer or defenseless special mission ship like USNS Effective by dispatching Maritime Militia forces to harass or obstruct it.
This could play out in a particularly dangerous way for regional stability and American interests. Even if the Obama Administration is able to complete its tenure without a major incident, its successor may well face a fast-breaking Maritime Militia-related challenge all-too-soon after coming into office with one of the least conventionally-prepared-and-understood national security teams in modern memory. 

China’s 44 increasingly aggressive intercepts leading up to the EP-3 incident, which occurred 77 days into George W. Bush’s term, as well as its handling of the ensuing crisis, were intended to test his intentions and persuade him to adopt a more conciliatory approach to China. 

The Beijing-instigated Impeccable incident, beginning just 44 days after Obama’s inauguration, was part of a concerted Chinese effort to test his mettle and see if he could be pushed to reduce lawful U.S. surveillance and reconnaissance operations in international waters and airspace. 

It immediately followed a smaller-scale incident, in which a Chinese government vessel and aircraft repeatedly harassed USNS Victorious in international waters of the Yellow Sea. 

This timing suggests a concerted, national effort at making a point to the new president. 

Fortunately, Obama passed that test.
On October 27, 2015, however, when USS Lassen sailed near artificially augmented Subi Reef, small commercial craft with the hallmarks of Maritime Militia vessels approached it in apparently premeditated fashion. 

Who knows what contingencies they might have been practicing for, or what footage they might have recorded for future propaganda?

History of Harm:
Leading elements of China’s Third Sea Force have already played frontline roles in manifold Chinese incidents and skirmishes with foreign maritime forces throughout the South China Sea. These include China’s:
• 1974 seizure of the western Paracels from Vietnam
• 2009 harassment of U.S. Navy surveillance ship Impeccable
• 2011 sabotage of two Vietnamese hydrographic vessels
• 2012 seizure of Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, giving China a new operational model that it literally calls the “Scarborough Model”
• and 2014 repulsion of Vietnamese vessels from disputed waters surrounding its oil rig, including by ramming and sinking them.
In recent years, China has used its Maritime Militia against military and civilian ships and crews of its immediate neighbors and the United States—with no direct public response from any of them. There is an important reason for this lack of light on China’s Third Sea Force: despite a deluge of Chinese-language evidence of its development and activities, no U.S. government report or Washington-based executive branch official has publicly mentioned China’s Maritime Militia, at all. 

As a result, U.S. policy is under-informed, U.S. regional allies and partners are confused, and Beijing is emboldened.
But make no mistake. 

These are state-organized, -developed, and -controlled forces operating under a direct military chain of command. 

China’s most advanced Maritime Militia units—those entrusted with missions potentially requiring hazardous interaction with U.S. and other foreign forces—are in fact state actors reporting to, and directed by, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) chain of command to conduct Chinese state-sponsored activities. 

Maritime Militia units have a military organizational structure. 

They are linked to the PLA (military) chain of command directly through People’s Armed Forces Departments (PAFDs), their direct managers for recruitment, planning, organization, training, and policy execution. 

At a “mandatory wicket” level, through which Maritime Militia communications and directives—such as mobilization and mission orders—must typically pass, PAFDs are staffed by active duty PLA personnel.
Official Chinese sources document unambiguously that leading Maritime Militia units are receiving military training directly from uniformed PLAN personnel while wearing their own Militia uniforms. 

Their vessels engage in exercises with PLAN and China Coast Guard vessels. 

To incentivize such risky state service, localities provide militia personnel with a “disability pension” of over $8,600 a year if they suffer harm in the line of duty—the same benefits other government employees receive. 

A knowledgeable individual has described to the author his experience aboard a Chinese Maritime Militia vessel. 

He observed major “T-bar” type reinforcements inside the hull, completely unnecessary for fishing but useful for ramming other vessels. 

Unlike on normal fishing vessels, with which the individual was intimately familiar, there was no sight or smell of anything fish-related. 

The personnel appeared extremely professional and specialized, with a military-style bearing quite different from that of normal fishermen.
Now China is generating a worrying new wave of the future in leading-edge Maritime Militia development. 

The Sansha Militia, headquartered on Woody Island in the Paracels, was established to be a professional paramilitary force first and foremost, with fishing a secondary mission at best. 

Sansha Maritime Militia members have been photographed loading crates labeled “light weapons” onto one of their newly delivered large vessels, several dozen of which boast water cannons, collision-absorbing rails, and reinforced hulls—features not common to normal fishing trawlers, but highly useful for aggressive spraying and ramming.

Some ships reportedly have a “weapons and equipment room” and an “ammunition store.”

A Test for Trump? Prevent China from ‘Gulliverizing’ an American Destroyer:
In light of abundant clear and present evidence, China’s Maritime Militia can only be as deceptive and plausibly deniable as we allow it to be—through our own silence and inaction. 

Before China is able to put the United States, or one of its regional allies or partners, in a misleading but precarious position of appearing to confront “innocent civilian” fishermen, American officials must publicly reveal the Third Sea Force’s true nature and deeds.
At stake is not only the very best of the current president’s vision and legacy, but also the situation that he leaves for his successor, and for American interests in the Asia-Pacific. 

It is deeply regrettable that the Obama Administration has known about China’s Maritime Militia for years yet has ignored it in public—despite concerted urging in Congressional testimony and elsewhere that it do so. 

The Administration’s apparent dismissal thus far of repeated recommendations that it at least mention China’s Maritime Militia by name to begin raising awareness can only have emboldened Beijing. 

To safeguard his Asia-Pacific legacy and to support America’s future in the region under his successor, Obama should finally direct his administration to address this vital issue while he is still in office.
The one U.S. official to discuss China’s Maritime Militia substantively in public, Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift, rightly recommends: “Let’s acknowledge that it’s there. Let’s acknowledge how it’s being command-and-controlled.” 

Much more is needed: Swift has attempted repeatedly to bring up the Maritime Militia with Chinese interlocutors, but—unsurprisingly—“can’t get anyone to acknowledge the veracity of who they are. 

I can’t get that conversation started.” 

To pierce the veil cloaking China’s Third Sea Force, Washington-based officials and public U.S. government publications such as the Pentagon’s China report must clarify that the U.S. government knows what is going on, has vetted the information, stands by the information and considers it important, and is willing to share it to ensure “mass enlightenment.” 

Such a whole-of-government approach is needed to clarify that Maritime Militia awareness is no mere Navy “hobby horse” but rather is essential to ensuring an international community based on international rules and norms that transcends might making right, and in which authoritarians such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin cannot simply bully their neighborhood and treat it as their personal sphere of influence.
If this administration uses the opportunity it has now to go on the record and document publically the reality, the nature and the approach of China’s Maritime Militia, it can help to inform all the relevant stakeholders and the public, including China. 

Showing that Washington is wise to Beijing’s game will create a measure of deterrence, and could help to dissuade China from ever engaging in a Maritime Militia-based test. 

Even if China were to engineer such a test, it would still give the United States time to prepare organizationally, raising awareness within its fleets, readying government public-affairs officers, and informing the media and public. 

This way, when reporters and anchors at the various television and news networks who are not specialists in military issues spring into action, they will have had time to learn. 

At worst, they will be able to find clearly reliable information rapidly on the Internet. 

China’s Maritime Militia is only as deniable for China as U.S. officials allow it to be, and they can conclusively remove plausible deniability once and for all. 

This is a force that thrives in the shadows; the more it is exposed to sunlight, the less effective it will become.
If U.S. officials do their homework and act well in advance, they can portray the facts accurately, enjoy a powerful narrative in their favor, and deter Chinese poking and predations. 

But should they neglect their homework and wait for China to pose problems at a time and a place of its choosing, it could generate a dilemma with China dispatching a media disinformation campaign. 

This would be a potent example of Beijing wielding what Chinese strategists term the “three warfares” 三战: primarily public opinion warfare 舆论战, but also psychological warfare 心理战 and legal warfare 法律战. 

Absent adequate preparations and leadership, the result could be officials and citizens across America and Asia alike being misled, confused, or dispirited; and difficult real-time choices for a new President who has never before held public office.
Perhaps particularly important in this unusual presidential transition, allowing for a non-partisan approach that can span two different administrations will give a solid authority of U.S. government confirmation that will transcend personalities and politics—both volatile concerns of late. 

In the spirit of President George H. W. Bush’s thoughtful note to President Clinton, this offers a constructive stakeholder approach to passing the baton and leaving President Trump—upon whom American interests and regional stability increasingly depend—in the best possible position. Regardless of what leadership and stewardship Obama ultimately demonstrates in this regard, however, Trump and his team must prepare to pass their China test. 

If Obama fails to leave such a legacy, it will be all the more urgent for Trump and his coalescing administration to address this and related issues proactively.
Appointing experienced Asia-Pacific advisors with a track record of supporting a robust, enduring U.S. presence in the region is an essential foundation. 

One of the best choices Trump could make to underwrite strong U.S. Navy development, reassure allies, and discourage any Chinese adventurism would be appoint the highly capable Congressman J. Randy Forbes to serve as the next Secretary of the Navy—a move that would inspire an increasingly challenged service.
Regardless of who ends up initiating a long-overdue response to China’s potential gray zone challenge, American policy-makers must now do three things to avert a potential setback or crisis: 

(1) ‘call out’ China’s Maritime Militia officially in public, 

(2) share information with countries at risk, and 

(3) communicate clearly to Beijing that any ships ignoring repeated warnings by U.S. vessels to desist from disrupting or harassing them will be treated as military-controlled and handled accordingly.
The United States faces growing challenges in the South China Sea. 

China’s Maritime Militia is one of the simplest to begin to address: its plausible deniability is one of its greatest strengths, and it has many exploitable vulnerabilities. 

By informing the public of what China has done (and is capable of doing) and making clear that any such behavior will be met with a vigorous response, Washington can help to inoculate itself against a particularly trying crisis. 

American officials can quickly unmask China’s Third Sea Force by putting a clear U.S. government stamp of authority on already-available information before Beijing parlays ongoing ambiguity into presidential probing. 

But time is running out—Trump and his incoming administration may soon be tested. 

With the world watching as almost never before, failure would come at a terrible cost. 

To begin averting disaster, it’s time for change that American allies and China alike can believe in: proactive presidential leadership. 

The first step is simple: mention the Maritime Militia.