PART 3:

When Grand Strategies Collide

April 1, 2009
China’s development of an oceangoing navy with global reach is intended to mitigate certain risks, but
it will also pose new ones. The transition
from an agricultural economy to a
resource-intensive industrial economy
means that China must shift its strategic
focus to protect its maritime trade. As it
happens, China’s trade routes parallel
those of other powers or traverse other
maritime domains. The farther a Chinese
blue-water fleet ventures out, the greater
the chance it will bump into another blue-
water fleet, which could result in a Cold-
War confrontation with the United States.

Editor’s Note: This is the third part of a three-part series on China’s development of a blue-water
navy.

As noted in part one of this series, China has had three core geopolitical imperatives for much of its
history: maintaining internal unity in the Han Chinese regions, maintaining control of the buffer
regions, and protecting the coast from foreign encroachment. To these can be added a fourth
imperative, predicated on China’s shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy: securing sea-
lane approaches to the Chinese mainland and maritime routes of resource acquisition.

It is this fourth imperative that has prompted the modernization and reform of the People’s Liberation
Army to include a naval expeditionary focus. But such a focus will put China on a collision course with
other emerging or established maritime powers. China’s supply lines are, for the most part, identical to
Japan’s supply lines and run through India’s maritime domain. Chinese naval expansion also runs
square in the face of a key U.S. imperative — preventing any major regional or international naval
power from developing and thus challenging U.S. domination of the seas.

India’s Imperatives

India, China’s neighbor across the Himalayas, is nearly as populous as China but covers a much
smaller land mass. While the Indian culture and population have spread throughout history, the
subcontinent itself has been fairly isolated by geography, surrounded as it is by the jungles and
mountains of Myanmar to the east, the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau to the north and the deserts of
western Pakistan and Afghanistan to the west. The geopolitical imperatives of India have evolved
within this “island,” though not all have been achieved:

 Achieve suzerainty in the Ganges River basin.

 Expand nominal control from the core of the subcontinent to the natural geographical barriers.
 Expand control past the Ganges River basin to the Indus River basin.
 Expand power into the Indian Ocean basin to deter foreign penetration.

India has not yet achieved its third imperative and thus remains in a constant struggle with
neighboring Pakistan, where Indian security focuses most of its attention. However, this has not
prevented India from moving on to the early stages of achieving its fourth imperative — developing a
navy capable of exerting nominal control over the Indian Ocean basin.

New Delhi has alternately relied on Moscow and Washington to assist in this development, when it isn’t
trying to develop technologies and training doctrine on its own. Russia poses little threat to Indian
naval expansion and has even encouraged it, so long as New Delhi remained close to Moscow. Russia
can offer equipment that is far beyond the reach of indigenous Indian development, but it is the United
States, which has dominated the Indian Ocean for decades, that India must turn to either as a
competitor or as a partner in extending its maritime influence.

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com
Beijing’s push into the Indian Ocean has left New Delhi worried about a Chinese strategy of
encirclement. China has close relations and/or port and tracking facilities in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka and Pakistan — all India’s neighbors and, in Pakistan’s case, a direct competitor. While Beijing’s
move may have more to do with preventing interdiction of its long, vulnerable supply lines that run
from Africa and the Middle East through the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, even moves
intended for defense can be interpreted (or used) for other purposes.

The Indian navy sees its own necessary sphere of operations pushing out from the Indian Ocean and
Bay of Bengal to the Persian Gulf and east coast of Africa, and west through the Strait of Malacca to
the western coast of Australia. Like China, India has a strategic vision based on a combination of
potentially vulnerable trade routes and the need to protect the country from seaborne threats.

In many ways, Indian naval development remains in its nascent stage. But a perceived Chinese
maritime encirclement of India has spurred a surge in Indian naval investment and driven New Delhi
closer to Washington as a strategic naval partner. This, in turn, can be seen by Beijing as a growing
threat to its own maritime security, which could accelerate a regional maritime arms race.

Japan’s Imperatives

Like China, Japan is a resource-dependent industrialized nation. As an island, however, Japan is more
dependent upon resources from overseas than China is and has been for a longer period of time. As a
result, Japan is a much more developed naval power, one that was able to strike a serious blow to the
U.S. Pacific Fleet at the onset of World War II.

Like any country, Japan has strategic imperatives shaped in large part by its geography. Japan is a
collection of relatively resource-poor islands lying off an Asian landmass rich in space and resources.
The Japanese imperatives start at the center and move outward, like the layers of an onion.

 Keep the home islands under the control of a central government and unified military.

Maintain control of the seas around the Japanese islands.

 Become the dominant influence in the land masses abutting the territorial seas, namely the
southern portion of far eastern Russia and the Chinese coastline, at least as far south as
Shanghai.
 Be the dominant maritime power in the Northwest Pacific, south to Formosa/Taiwan and
southeast to Iwo Jima.
 Secure control of access to mineral resources in mainland China/Southeast Asia (and later to
the Middle East as resource routes expand).

Even before Japan’s consolidation in the 16th century, the Japanese islands were known regionally as
a center of trade and pirate activity, with pirates staging raids along the Korean and Chinese coastlines
and down into the South China Sea. At the end of the 15th century, Japanese forces, under the
leadership of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, led a massive naval and amphibious assault on Korea, with the
intent of moving through to Tang China.

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com
Initially, the invasion demonstrated the
strength of Japanese naval power, but its
end showed the major weakness of a
maritime invasion of mainland Asia — the
Japanese were outnumbered by the
continental Asians. When the Koreans cut
the Japanese maritime supply lines, the
invasion collapsed. Two and a half
centuries later, an insular Japan was
forced open by the gunboat diplomacy of
the imperial powers, including the United
States. In response, Japan underwent a
rapid shift in its own military evolution,
embracing maritime power as the way to
defend its interests and expand its
influence. Click to enlarge

By the 1930s, Japan’s growing need for

resources led to the invasion of China
and the military drive into Southeast
Asia. Once again, Japan found it difficult
to conquer mainland Asia; the population
was just too large for the Japanese to
overcome. At the same time, Japan’s
expansion into Southeast Asia created
the need to control the waters along the
vital supply lines, placing Japan squarely
on a confrontational course with the United States. The outcome was World War II’s Pacific War, which
resulted in a U.S. victory and the loss of all of Japan’s strategic interests, including sovereignty of the
home islands. After World War II, as the Cold War intensified, Washington saw a need for a strong ally
in Japan as a way to contain the spread of Communism and Soviet power. Japanese strategic needs
were met in a new manner — Washington provided maritime security while Tokyo dealt with domestic
issues and focused on economic expansion.

Decades later, Japan transitioned from being a vanquished foe of the United States to being a major
economic competitor, underwritten by U.S. naval power. Rising competition, the end of the Cold War
and the reduction of U.S. willingness to underwrite the Japanese economy led Tokyo to begin
reassessing its own military capabilities, particularly its Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).
Japan would embark upon a revitalization of its own navy and prepare to take more responsibility for
its own maritime security. This inevitably will involve a Japanese challenge to China in the East China
Sea over territory and undersea resources.

Because Japanese supply routes, particularly for access to Middle Eastern energy sources, are virtually
the same as Chinese routes, Japan sees China’s maritime defense moves as a potential threat. This is
an untenable situation for Tokyo, and Chinese action and Japanese reaction are feeding a regional
maritime arms race. Tokyo is re-engaging Southeast Asian nations, reviving ties left dormant when
Japan’s economic malaise in the 1990s slashed Japanese development assistance money that had
been going to the region. Japan also is looking to enhance ties with India and Mongolia — part of a
strategy to refocus China’s security concerns and perhaps redirect Chinese investments.

Even more importantly, Japan already has what many consider the second-best navy in the world. The
JMSDF is well-funded, developing rapidly and fields some of the latest in modern naval hardware. In
this competition, as in the competition with the U.S. Navy, the People’s Liberation Army Navy is at a
profound disadvantage.

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com
U.S. Imperatives

In their naval expansion, China, India and Japan all must deal with the reality of the world’s dominant
maritime power: the United States. In many ways, U.S. naval expansion beginning in the late 1700s
also was an expression of defense, but the degree of expansion over almost two centuries created
room for offensive, or “pre-emptive” defense around the globe. A Chinese navy that is aggressively
expanding, no matter the reason, poses a potential challenge to the fundamental U.S. interest of
maintaining control of the seas.

The strategic imperatives of the United States are rooted both in the relative isolation of the country
and in its contact with both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

 Dominate North America through expanding colonization, conquest and concessions.

 Allow no power to emerge in the Western Hemisphere to challenge U.S. domination of North
America.
 Control the waters of the Western Hemisphere to prevent the approach of foreign military
power.
 Dominate the world’s oceans to protect global trade and ensure that no power can build a navy
to challenge the United States.
 Ensure that no single continental power arises on the Eurasian landmass capable of challenging
the United States.

The expansion of the young United States from a colonial holding of Great Britain to a continental
nation to the world’s sole superpower attests to its focused, if not always overt, efforts to fulfill and
maintain these imperatives. Control of the world’s oceans remains a major goal of the United States
because it provides the ability not only to protect trade, but also, essentially, to attack any country
anywhere while preventing any country from attacking the continental United States. U.S. dominance
of the seas is thus a core imperative of U.S. strategic defense, and emerging challengers are either
confronted or redirected.

World War II saw the clash of the two emerging naval powers in the Pacific — the United States and
Japan. Neither could allow the other to become dominant; Japan needed to expand its empire in order
to preserve the security of its natural resources, and the United States could not allow Japan to
interdict emerging trade routes in the Pacific or threaten the U.S. Pacific coastline. This clash of
strategic imperatives drove the two economic partners to a military confrontation at sea, whether they
wanted one or not.

After World War II, the United States dealt with the potential emergence of the Soviet Union as a sea
power by encircling it through a series of alliances, redirecting Soviet technology and priorities to a
land-based defense. The United States also has employed this strategy in space, another potential
battlespace where Washington must ensure that it can strike any country anywhere while preventing
any country from attacking the United States. At least for the , whether on the sea, under the sea or
in space, when an emerging power begins to push out more aggressively, it will meet resistance from
the United States.

Chinese naval developments have definitely drawn the attention of the U.S. military, and
confrontations and accidents have already occurred as the United States has asserted its claimed right
to operate off the Chinese coast for whatever purpose. Beijing will find U.S. resistance not only at sea.
Its flirtations in space have drawn serious U.S. responses, and Washington still holds the strategic card
of alliance encirclement, which in this case would link Japan, Australia, India and a few key Southeast
Asian nations in the effort. Perhaps more troubling for China is the potential for the United States, or
possibly even India or Japan, to stir up unrest in China’s buffer regions, such as Tibet or Xinjiang.

Strategy of Distraction

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com
Despite the risks, China now considers it necessary to become a naval power, and it has made
dramatic progress in doing so. Its interests have become too global for it to focus inward and rely
mainly on land-based defense. This recognized imperative, along with China’s unwillingness or inability
to align with a powerful ally to help guard its interests, is already raising the potential for a maritime
arms race in East, Southeast and South Asia, drawing in not only Japan and India, but also South
Korea, Malaysia and other Southeast Asian states.

The biggest challenge, of course, will come from the United States. If history is any guide, Washington
will work with other countries in the region to enclose China’s maritime expansion within the first
island chain, from Japan to the Strait of Malacca. And a U.S. strategy of containment may not be
limited to maritime activity. As the United States demonstrated in dealing with the Soviets, causing
trouble for China along its land periphery could be a useful tool — and China has many internal
problems that could be exacerbated by foreign pressure. While China has no choice but to look to the
sea, its strategic focus could be forced to turn inward again, as it has been for virtually all of its
history.

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com
STRATFOR is the world leader in global intelligence. Our team of experts collects and analyzes
intelligence from every part of the world — offering unparalleled insights through our exclusively
published analyses and forecasts. Whether it be on political, economic or military developments,
STRATFOR not only provides its members with a better understanding of current issues and events,
but invaluable assessments of what lies ahead.

Renowned author and futurologist George Friedman founded STRATFOR in 1996. Most recently, he
authored the international bestseller, The Next 100 Years. Dr. Friedman is supported by a team of
professionals with widespread experience, many of whom are internationally recognized in their own
right. Although its headquarters are in Austin, Texas, STRATFOR’s staff is widely distributed
throughout the world.

“Barron’s has consistently found STRATFOR’s insights informative and largely on the money-as has the
company’s large client base, which ranges from corporations to media outlets and government
agencies.” - Barron’s

What We Offer

On a daily basis, STRATFOR members are made aware of what really matters on an international
scale. At the heart of STRATFOR’s service lies a series of analyses which are written without bias or
political preferences. We assume our readers not only want international news, but insight into the
developments behind it.

In addition to analyses, STRATFOR members also receive access to an endless supply of SITREPS
(situational reports), our heavily vetted vehicle for providing breaking geopolitical news. To complete
the STRATFOR service, we publish an ongoing series of geopolitical monographs and assessments
which offer rigorous forecasts of future world developments.

The STRATFOR Difference

STRATFOR members quickly come to realize the difference between intelligence and journalism. We
are not the purveyors of gossip or trivia. We never forget the need to explain why any event or issue
has significance and we use global intelligence not quotes.

STRATFOR also provides corporate and institutional memberships for multi-users. Our intelligence
professionals provide Executive Briefings for corporate events and board of directors meetings and
routinely appear as speakers at conferences. For more information on corporate or institutional
services please contact sales@stratfor.com

STRATFOR 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 1-512-744-4300 www.stratfor.com