RISING INSTABILITY QUOTIENT IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC: HOW SHOULD INDIA RESPOND?

Abstract

The contemporary geopolitical environment in the Western Pacific is becoming increasingly unstable on account of intractable territorial disputes and overlapping maritime zone claims in the East and South China Seas.  The tenuous Taiwan Strait dynamics further elevate the regional instability quotient.  The resultant maritime security situation threatens the freedom of the seas for safe and unhindered navigation and overflight and will severely impact the sea-borne trade lifelines of the world.  The revisionist outlook of China and its ‘grey zone’ approach to enforce its untenable maritime rights and interests, lies at the root of almost all disputes.  The global stakeholders must, therefore, collaboratively engage the challenger in dialogue, discussions and dissuasive efforts, with a view to seek conformance with the existent rules-based order.  They must, however, concurrently develop capacities and capabilities for credible deterrence should these gambits not yield the desired outcomes.  India, with an expansive vision of mutual and holistic advancement for security and growth across regions — as is amply evident from the evolution of its maritime policy of SAGAR into MAHASAGAR — must actively collaborate with the global stakeholders in maintaining the freedom and openness of the seas in the Western Pacific too. 

Keywords: ASEAN, China, East China Sea, India, Indo-Pacific, MAHASAGAR, Philippines, PLA Navy, Rules-based Order, SAGAR, South China Sea, Senkakus, Taiwan Strait, UNCLOS

The vast Indo-Pacific Region, extending from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of Africa, and forming about two-third of the Earth’s surface is beset with a variety of geopolitical contestations, simmering tensions, underlaying fault lines and consequent potential for conflict and instability.  This predominantly maritime space encompasses the Pacific Ocean (which is probably better thought-of as the eastern segment of the Indo-Pacific) and the Indian Ocean (which is probably better thought-of as the western segment of the Indo-Pacific).  It is generally observed that the security challenges that threaten the freedom, openness and stability in the Indo-Pacific region mainly arise from the whole of the western Pacific littoral — ranging from Russia’s east coast to the Korean Peninsula, incorporating all the Japanese islands and covering the entire East- and South China Seas.  The contentious territorial sovereignty disputes and overlapping maritime claims between various State actors — including Russia, Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam — lie at the root of the tenuous regional situation.

This Paper provides an overview of the prevailing contemporary geopolitical environment in the Western Pacific Ocean littoral, with specific focus on the fragile maritime security situation arising out of the proactive actions taken by various involved State parties to enforce their rigid stances and safeguard their perceived ‘maritime rights and interests’.  First of all is the situation in the East China Sea (ECS), where the seemingly irreconcilable differences over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights between Japan and China have been turning the area into a ‘hotbed’ of military posturing, has been analysed.  Secondly, the existent volatile situation in and around the Taiwan Strait, where the acts of Chinese military coercion are casting an ominous shadow of confrontation, has been examined.  Thirdly, the games of brinkmanship being played out in the South China Sea (SCS), where aggressive moves by China to unilaterally create ‘a new normal’ by continuous use of ‘grey zone’ tactics may cause serious escalation, have been briefly investigated.   Finally, the lessons that India must draw from the prevalent situation in the Indo-Pacific, and the options that New Delhi can exercise towards furtherance of the Indian national interests, are also explored.

 

East China Sea (ECS) – ‘Hotbed’ of military posturing

China and Japan have largely shared an antagonistic relationship for quite a long time and have fought many wars, particularly over last two centuries.  Japan also invaded China a number of times and captured many islands including Taiwan during this period.  These Japanese campaigns inflicted large-scale misery and suffering to the Chinese populace — with their womenfolk being particularly subjected to dishonour and physical abuse.  These horrific incidents are still lodged firmly in the psyche of the Chinese people and occasionally resurface in the form of violent emotional outbursts.  The Japanese campaign in the second World War came to an ignominious end when Tokyo had to accept unconditional surrender after the two nuclear explosions that brought about death and destruction at a scale unimaginable hitherto fore.  In the period since then, Chinese communist Party leaders have sought to stoke the nationalistic sentiments of the Chinese population against the Japanese excesses of the past under a broad-brush rhetoric of never forgetting the “century of humiliation”.

In the contemporary context, the territorial dispute over the Senkaku islands — which the Chinese refer to as the Diaoyu islands — and the claim over their associated maritime zones is a matter of great discord between the two countries.  The situation around these islands, which continue to remain under the administrative control of Japan, remained largely peaceful except for unauthorised/illegal fishing by Chinese boats in the islands’ vicinity, and an occasional display of aggressive behaviour and intent by them.  The dispute caught global attention afresh after the Japanese Coast Guard (JCG) detained a Chinese fishing vessel along with its crew on 07 September 2010, when that vessel deliberately collided with two JCG ships in quick succession.[1]

Subsequent to that incident, and particularly after September of 2012, when Japan decided to nationalise the three islets comprising the Senkakus — the Uotsuri, Kitakojima, Minamikojima —the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) ships and other Maritime Administration ships started getting deployed on a regular basis in support of the Chinese claims.  The maritime security situation around these islands has progressively become more tense, with numerous CCG ships being continuously deployed throughout the year.  These ships operate in the contiguous zone in large numbers almost every day, and often cross over into the islands’ territorial sea.  Figure 1 below, provides the total number of CCG and other agencies’ ships operating monthly in the contiguous zone of the islands and crossing over into the Japanese territorial sea, for the year 2024 and extending till 31 March 2025.  This graph has been extracted from the original data published by the JCG from January 2008.[2]

In addition, Chinese military aircraft and aerial drones, such as the BXK-005, WZ-7 and TB-001, regularly operate in the maritime areas surrounding the Senkaku Islands and fly close to the Japanese islands while crossing various international straits.  Japan per force, has had to launch its JASDF aircraft to monitor, shadow or intercept the Chinese aircraft on almost every occasion. The fact that JASDF had to launch 722, 575, and 479 aircraft in 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively, to challenge the Chinese aggressiveness in the skies, clearly indicates the large scale of the ongoing ‘war of nerves’.[3]

Fig 1: Chinese Coast Guard and other ships around Senkaku Islands

Source: Graph by Author. Data from Japan Coast Guard

Another issue between Japan and China relates to the dispute over resource exploitation of the Chunxiao gas fields in the East China Sea, which has arisen mainly due to the difference in interpretation of the extent of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS-1982).  China asserts that the oilfields lie within its EEZ, while Japan argues that the oilfields in question lie in an area where the maritime boundary between the two countries remains unsettled and quotes the principle of median line adopted by UNCLOS-1982.  While an uneasy truce prevails on the basis of a mutual development agreement in June 2008, the unilateral exploitation of these fields by China on the one hand, and its wilful obstruction of any Japanese efforts to develop them, on the other, continues to generate active discord.

Over the last decade-plus, overtly aggressive activities by the Chinese PLA — mainly the PLA Navy (PLAN) and the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) — in the vicinity of the Japanese main and outlying islands in both, the Sea of Japan and the western Pacific Ocean, have seen a substantial rise, in consonance with the accelerated modernisation of China’s defence forces during this period.  These have largely manifested themselves in the conduct of military activities in the surrounding waters of Japan, including the two-way transit of Chinese warships and overflight of PLAAF aircraft through various straits separating the Japanese islands.  Some such passages are the Soya, Tsugaru, Osumi and Miyako straits.  In fact, Chinese aircraft carrier groups and the associated PLAAF and PLAN aircraft often pass through the Miyako strait, either while proceeding for exercises in the Pacific Ocean or changing base ports between North-, East- and South Sea Fleet locations.  Chinese submarines have also been known to operate in the surrounding Japanese waters — including in the contiguous zone of the Senkakus — with one serious incident involving the submerged passage of a nuclear submarine through the Japanese territorial sea.[4]  The Chinese and the Russian navies, too, also been conducting bilateral exercises since the last five years, with ever-increasing frequency and scale, at various locations around Japan, and this further complicates the defence matrix for Japan, both in scope and geographic extent.

However, the intent of such activities, carried out by the PLA in peace time, by utilising the stipulations of UNCLOS-1982 governing “the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation” as a legal fig leaf, is quite obvious to Japan and the rest of the world.  It is also quite apparent from an analysis of the data presented in the “Defense of Japan 2024 (Digest)” that the current military might of China far outweighs that of Japan in quantitative terms, and this critical disparity has widened considerably over the past decade.  Just two comparative data-points should suffice to highlight this growing chasm.  The first relates to the total tonnage of Chinese warships, which has registered an increase of 63 per cent, while that of Japan has increased by just 14.8 per cent.  The second — and starker — development is in terms of aircraft numbers in the respective Air Forces.  Here, against an increase of 610 aircraft in the PLAAF, there has actually been a decrease of 50 in the JASDF.[5]

It is, therefore, quite logical to conclude that the Japanese Self Defence Forces (SDF) will find it progressively more difficult to challenge the PLA’s aggressive activities in the maritime areas surrounding Japan.  However, if the inordinately aggressive Chinese posturing crosses certain national security red-lines unacceptable to Japan, either inadvertently or by design, and given the fact that Japanese naval and aerial hardware is, in some cases at least, qualitatively superior, as also the fact that Tokyo enjoys a firm military security guarantee from Washington DC as its closest ally, the probability of a bloody Japan-China military confrontation occurring in future, cannot be ruled out.

 

Taiwan Strait Situation – Precariously Poised

The security situation across the Taiwan Strait has been quite precariously poised since the visit of Ms Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, in August 2022.  While the cross-Strait situation was always simmering with sporadic incidents ever since the 1990s bringing it to a slow boil, the Nancy Pelosi incident provided China with just the right excuse to ratchet-up its proactive stance vis-à-vis Taiwan.  The PLA Navy now openly engages in increased deployment and manoeuvres in the Taiwan Strait, as also off the eastern coast of Taiwan.  PLAAF aircraft and drones now fly across the median line on an almost-daily basis and intrude into Taiwan’s Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) at will.

China released a White Paper on Taiwan August 2022.  Its title, “The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era”, itself implied that a ‘historically transformed’ and ‘rejuvenated China of the new era’ considered the current time-period as “a new starting point for reunification”, and that “We [China] will always be ready to respond with the use of force or other necessary means to interference by external forces…”^[6]  The release of this boldly stated White Paper — generally coinciding with the visit of  Nancy Pelosi — has since been followed through  with appropriate military-posturing and heightened patrolling by maritime law enforcement agencies, duly backed by a multi-pronged media, legal and psychological onslaught.[7]  This proactive trend assumed particularly alarming portents during the ten-month period in 2024 — between the January elections in Taiwan, running through the Presidential inauguration in May and culminating with President Lai Ching-Te’s first speech on 10 October 2024 to mark Taiwan’s 113th National Day.

The occasion-specific PLA deployments and exercises during this period were quite unambiguous about the firmness of the Chinese intent.  Within three days of Taiwan’s new President assuming office on 20 May 2024, the Chinese PLA conducted a well-publicised Exercise ‘JOINT SWORD-2024-A’ at an unprecedented scale, all around Taiwan.  The 24-hour long multi-domain exercise involved the PLAN ships and submarines, PLAAF aircraft, PLA Army’s amphibious troops, PLA Rocket Force units, and CCG ships, for the first time.  The exercise was spread over many areas all around Taiwan, and also brought the outlying islands of Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and Dongyin into its ambit.^[8]

The blatant display of scaremongering was repeated just four days after the Taiwanese President’s first National Day speech, in the form of exercise JOINT SWORD 2024-B on 14 October 2024, at locations even closer to Taiwan, and with even greater intensity and a larger force, including the participation of the Liaoning aircraft carrier group.  Beijing of course, left nothing to the imagination, with the aim of the exercise JOINT SWORD 24-B being stated as:

“… testing the joint operations capabilities of the Eastern Theatre command units in conducting sea- and air-based combat-readiness patrol, laying blockade against key Taiwanese ports, carrying out assault on maritime and ground targets, as also seize joint superiority in the combat-zone”.^[9]

A diagram depicting the general locations of PLA’s exercise JOINT SWORD 2024-B along with its comparisons with the earlier exercise JOINT SWORD 2024-A of May 2024, as published by Taiwan’s media, is reproduced at Figure 2.^[10]

Fig 2: Areas of Exercise JOINT SWORD 2024 – Comparison between A and B Series

Source: Focus Taiwan/ CNA English News

This escalatory trend in the PLA’s overtly aggressive manoeuvres vis-à-vis Taiwan, was amply evident from China’s Exercise STRAIT THUNDER 2025-A, conducted on 01 and 02 April 2025, wherein 38 PLA Navy ships, 12 government vessels and 135 PLAAF aircraft participated, with the objective of seizing control of key areas and controlling chokepoints.[11]  It may just be that the top Chinese Communist party leadership still harbours some doubts about the PLA’s capability to pull-it off with successful results.

However, this supposed reticence on part of Beijing does not alter one bit the long-held Chinese conviction of ‘reunifying’.  The progressive increase in the tempo of Chinese military exercises around Taiwan, when read in combination with the firmness of intent and appropriateness of timing articulated in the Taiwan White Paper of August 2022, should leave one in no doubt about the possibility of this horrific event occurring, sooner rather than later.  The global media speculation, duly fuelled by occasional statements by senior US military officials, has already posted a possible timeline of 2027 for this eventuality.^[12]

 

South China Sea (SCS) – A Playground of Brinkmanship

China staked its maritime claim to nearly 90 per cent of the South China Sea (SCS) by publicly asserting, in a note to the United Nation’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UN CLCS) in May of 2009, that it “… enjoyed sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, as well as seabed and sub-soil thereof”.  It sought legitimacy for this expansive and legally untenable claim by attaching the “nine-dash line” map to the aforementioned note.[13]  China had earlier forcibly captured Johnson South Reef from Vietnam in 1988 and occupied the Mischief Reef of Philippines in 1995.  China continues to hold them till date and has subsequently built artificial islands on them and five other features in addition — some of which are barely visible specks during low tide — by large-scale reclamation, in absolute contravention to the customary law of the sea.  The humongous scale of reclamation can be gauged from the fact that China has built airfields of 3,000 meters length on three of them — the Mischief, Subi, and Fiery Cross reefs.

The proactive Chinese activities in support of their so called ‘maritime rights and interests’ in the SCS have seen the adoption of a particularly aggressive stance against the Philippines.  The Chinese fishing fleet, maritime militia vessels, and CCG ships, using various combinations of ‘grey zone tactics’, have been consistently blocking the access of the Philippines naval ships and government vessels including those of its coast guard to various islands and features within the EEZ of the Philippines.  They have also been systematically harassing the Filipino fishermen and disrupting their fishing activities in and around these features.  The prime areas of repeated China-Philippines stand-off in the SCS — all within the EEZ of Philippines — particularly since heightening of bilateral tensions in 2012, are Scarborough Shoal, the Second Thomas Shoal, and the Sabina Shoal.

Although the International Court of Arbitration at the Hague, passed a ruling in favour of the Philippines in 2016, rendering all the maritime areas in the SCS “… encompassed by the ‘nine-dash line’ as contrary to the Convention [UNCLOS] and without lawful effect” and that “China has violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines over various features within that country’s EEZ”,[14] Beijing simply refused to accept the award on certain specious technical grounds.  In fact, ASEAN countries, having sensed the unilaterally revisionist tendencies of China soon after its use of force against Vietnam and the Philippines in the 1980s and 1990s, managed to collectively negotiate a “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” (DOC) with China in November 2002.  However, the non-binding nature of the DOC turned out to be its greatest drawback, as China continued to override its provisions to suit its interests while maintaining a façade of collaborative pretence.

The ineffectiveness of the DOC in checking the Chinese ‘salami slicing’ tactics in the SCS led to another concerted effort by the ASEAN Bloc to negotiate a fresh “Code of Conduct” (COC) with China.  However, while the COC negotiations have continued to languish for some two decades, China purposefully goes about pursuing its revisionist agenda.  The net result of all this wrangling is that ASEAN stands fragmented into four distinctly discernible groups on the SCS issue:

• Those in active dispute with China — Vietnam and the Philippines
• Countries facing minor, but resolvable issues in SCS — Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Countries seen to be siding with China — Cambodia, Laos
• Countries having no direct dispute with China and maintaining independent stance – Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar

China of course, stands to benefit from this divided ASEAN house, and prefers to deal bilaterally with each of these countries, with a view to arrive at a negotiated settlement on its own terms, and in favour of its own national interests, by leveraging the vast differential between their diplomatic, military, informational and economic (DIME) strengths.  This Chinese strategy certainly seems to be succeeding when one views countries like Malaysia and Indonesia adopting a soft and reconciliatory approach despite China occasionally riding roughshod over their sovereignty and maritime claims in the SCS.  Vietnam has similarly advocated the use of ‘bamboo diplomacy’[15] despite irregular Chinese activities in the Vietnamese EEZ, as also provocative acts such as the promulgation of new baselines in the Gulf of Tonkin, despite a longstanding mutually agreed delimitation of the international boundary.

It is, thus, quite possible that China, in the near future, may unilaterally take aggressive actions to change the status-quo in the SCS by forcefully grabbing certain disputed features through use of its ‘grey zone’ warfare assets and tactics.  The foremost country that is likely to face the brunt of China’s use of force is the Philippines; and the first domino to fall could well be the Second Thomas Shoal.  Beijing is possibly playing a waiting game vis-à-vis the Philippine Navy’s landing ship, the Sierra Madre, which has remained aground, while remaining a commissioned warship and still flying the Philippines flag, for close to three decades on that shoal.  Beijing appears to be waiting patiently for the highly corroded ship to sink of its own accord, before making further aggressive move.

The second plausible target could be the Scarborough Shoal, where the Chinese maritime militia vessels, fishing fleet, and the CCG ships — often working in unison — have been systematically denying the access to Filipino fishermen, government vessels, the Philippines Coast Guard (PCG), and even warships of the Philippines Navy, since 2012.[16]  This fractious matter again came to a head when the current Marcos Jr administration assumed a harder stance vis-à-vis the protection of its sovereign rights within its EEZ in 2023.  The Philippines further sought to formalise its claim to this shoal — and also to other features in SCS within its jurisdiction — by including them in its two newly passed laws, namely, the “Philippine Maritime Zones Act” (PMZA) and the “Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act” (PASLA).[17]   China, in response, promulgated new baselines around the shoal in November 2024 — as seen at Figure 3 — to provide legal cover to its access-control gambit , and sought to cement its claim by submitting their coordinates to the United Nations, a month later.[18]

Fig 3: Chinese baselines around Scarborough Shoal

Source: Benar News

China raked up yet another point of dispute when one CCG ship repeatedly rammed an anchored PCG vessel (BRP Teresa Magbanwa) at Sabina Shoal in August of 2024, and punched a gaping hole into its hull.[19]

Since the Philippines and the US are treaty allies, the US Department of Defense (DOD) has been actively supporting the capacity-building and capability-enhancement efforts of the Philippines, both, in terms of transfer of platforms and equipment, as also training the Philippines navy and PCG and jointly exercising with them.  In addition, the US Navy has increased its proactive presence in the SCS, often deploying two aircraft carrier groups in tandem.  Japan, too, has committed to support the Philippines through sale of large Coast Guard vessels and by offering soft loans and grants for building of more ships for the PCG.

The resultant situation, arising out of the confrontational big-power dynamics, irreconcilable territorial sovereignty and maritime zones’ claims, and the related national sensitivities of the disputants, is certainly quite volatile.  Therefore, acts of brinkmanship, whether by use of ‘grey zone’ tactics or by way of overt posturing implying the ‘threat of use of force’, certainly have the potential to escalate into an open conflict with terrible consequence for all concerned.

 

Lessons to Learn from Western Pacific Instability

Given the inherently unstable geopolitical environment in the Western Pacific littoral, and China being a common denominator in bringing about such a state of affairs in each of the connected subregions mentioned above — and even succeeding to variable degrees, with largely ‘less-than-robust’ opposition from affected stakeholders — one needs to remain cognisant of the possibility of a somewhat changed ‘global order’.  In such an environment, the current ‘balance of power’ model, wherein almost all countries in the littoral wish to benefit from comprehensive economic relations with China, while concurrently expecting national security assurance from the US, will just not be feasible.  In such a situation, the affected countries would per-force have to make hard choices between the US and China.[20]

In fact, there are already debates raging the world-over with regard to the US ability and/or willingness to provide an absolute security umbrella to its treaty allies; and equally serious questions are being raised by its ‘like-minded’ partners about its often-shifting intent and priorities.  In this ‘zero-sum’ kind of game, the emergence of a ‘China-centric’ world order — howsoever far-fetched it may appear at present — does fall well within the realms of a realistic imagination.[21]

The foremost lesson that the global policymakers must derive from the emergent situation in the Western Pacific region is that the current rules-based and time-tested global order must be preserved at all costs, so as to prevent the possibility of an altered ‘balance of power’ in favour of states with known revisionist agenda.  However, it is more than apparent that China, with its propensity to always create a ‘new normal’ in the Western Pacific Ocean — and elsewhere as is its wont — is not quite amenable to the dialogue and discussions within the tenets of the existing global order, based on international conventions, treaties, customary laws and the rules framed by global governing institutions.  Beijing is especially wary of discussions in the multilateral format; but wants to be part of as many such forums as possible so as to be able to shape their policy prescriptions to its inherent advantage from within.

Another option available to the global community is ‘dissuasion’ through multi-pronged opposition to revisionist mind-sets and activities, and collective efforts at disapproval, condemnation or isolation.  This effort, however, requires a strong and united front to be presented by a large group of countries, which is very hard to accomplish in the contemporary global environment, with nations persisting with differing viewpoints, priorities, international relations compulsions and, above all, widely varying national interests.  The resultant absence of robust unified mechanisms to mount sufficient pressure on the challenger to conform to the provisions of the established rules-based global order, may render such initiatives largely ineffective and thus cause them to fall well short of the desired outcome.  Another factor that makes this effort even more daunting is that China also has its own group of ‘friends’, which it has nurtured though the various resources at its disposal.  Such ‘friends’ of China often work at ‘cross-purposes’ and end up further diluting the intended power of ‘dissuasion’.

That leave only one option, that of ‘deterrence’ which is well-nigh impossible to exercise for any one country on its own, however powerful, capable and resource-rich it may be.  This again calls for a very substantial degree of collaborative effort, sincerity of purpose, and the commitment of a large quantum of financial-, technological-, and human resources, that too, on a long-term basis.  In order for this option to succeed, the countries that actually stand to be most adversely affected must make a concerted decision to develop punitive capabilities to retaliate in the all-encompassing realm of multi-domain warfare.  This, however, appears to be an even taller order than the concept of collaborative ‘dissuasion’, but if the world truly understands the perils of living in a China-centric global order, there is no option but to give it an honest trial.

 

Response Options for India

The dynamically fluid geopolitical environment in the Western Pacific and the surcharged atmosphere on account of the intractable stances and non-negotiable positions adopted by certain countries therein, leaves very little manoeuvring room for external players, including India, many of whose maritime interests lies in that region.[22]  This makes it imperative for the country to carefully weigh its options and response plans with a view to safeguarding its national interests to the best possible extent.  The Western Pacific region also qualifies as a major area of interest on yet another parameter, that is, one “based on considerations of Indian diaspora, overseas investments and political relations.”[23]

Since these factors form an intrinsic part of India’s national interest in the Western Pacific, New Delhi must respond to the current developments in the region with measured adroitness. However, it would be quite unrealistic for India to intervene militarily at such extended distances. Therefore, other levers of the DIME construct — the diplomatic, informational, military and economic — must be suitably exercised, either in standalone mode or in various combinations, for ensuring the best possible outcomes. Some such measures are mentioned below:[24]

• Ensure that Taiwan continues to exist as an independent State, free from overt threats of reunification, so that it continues to occupy the ‘front-side focus’ of China. To that end, India could look at a more nuanced ‘One China Policy’.
• Build additional capabilities to mount punitive countermeasures in the Indian Ocean while steadfastly refusing to let China change the status-quo on the land border. In fact, a heightened level of the Indian naval posturing in the Indian Ocean may be demonstrated, to coincide with specific developments when excessive Chinese brinkmanship in East China Sea, Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea is observed.  This will convey a strategic message of nuanced Indian concerns vis-à-vis its interest in the Western Pacific, with the additional benefit of keeping Beijing busy in deciphering the actual Indian intent.
• India may either increase the frequency of its annual naval overseas deployments in the Western Pacific or extend their duration; and must also provide greater publicity of these events in the international media. ASEAN member-states should also be requested to highlight the activities of Indian naval ships, with their own narratives of greater cooperation and like-mindedness.
• India must oppose any attempts by China to unilaterally change the status quo in the East China Sea and the SCS, with regard to Beijing’s expansive claims over various features and excessive maritime claims, in as many forums as possible. In this context, India’s nuanced change of tack with respect to the arbitral award of July 2016 favouring the plea of Philippines, where it laid emphasis on “…the need for peaceful settlement of disputes and for ‘adherence’ to international law, especially the UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea …”  is, indeed, quite noteworthy.[25]
• Since India does not identify with the so-called ‘China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’ due to the serious sovereignty- and territorial integrity concerns — and has therefore remained out of the Chinese ‘Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), too — this project should be referred to in India and by Indian interlocutors including our diplomats in Indian missions abroad, as the “China Pakistan-occupied Kashmir Economic Corridor” (CPOKEC) to convey India’s symbolic opposition. This could somewhat even out the renaming gambit the China has been engaged in many locations, including some in the Indian territory of Arunachal Pradesh.
• Finally, India must advocate the necessity of keeping the PLA busy on multiple fronts from different directions, and the members of QUAD grouping can play a very active part in this effort. Japan could deploy more of its JMSDF, JCG and JASDF assets off Senkaku islands and also to actively shadow the PLA warships and aircraft crossing various straits under its jurisdiction.  Japan’s proactive engagement with Philippines by way of financial, materiel and diplomatic support in response to the Chinese ‘grey zone’ posturing in the South China Sea is a welcome development. Continual freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) through the Taiwan Strait by the US Navy ships, as also by warships of few other like-minded stakeholders, in addition to the US Navy’s FONOP sailings around the Chinese claimed features in the Paracel and Spratly islands, will also ensure the engagement of sizeable PLA forces in the area.

 

Conclusion

The inherently unstable maritime security environment in the Indo-Pacific, driven by complicated geopolitical dynamics between the regional littoral States, presents a huge area of concern for the largely interconnected world.  The majority of global commodity- and energy trade, moving along the international shipping lanes (ISLs), forms the economic lifeline of almost all countries.  Therefore, it is in the utmost interest of all stakeholders to ensure that the seaborne connectivity through the Pacific Ocean is not interrupted on account of the serious instability that is taking root in the Western Pacific.

The US has been the acknowledged stabilising factor in the region and has been providing alliance-based security cover to many countries for more than half a century, with its forward military presence also ensuring reasonably ‘free, open and secure’ commercial activities through the seas.  India, as a maritime power of some consequence, and having a substantial stake in the free flow of its trade through that region, must also take suitable measures to keep the ISLs open and, in times of tension or conflict, to keep her SLOCs protected.  In fact, the inherent instability in the western Pacific must be viewed as an opportunity for India to lend more intensity and heft to its ‘Act East’ Policy by proactively leveraging its good relations with the countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and Russia.  As a logical extension of this endeavour, serious thought must be given to progressively extending the growing economic and people-to-people relations with Taiwan into the diplomatic realm too.

India has recently (in March of 2024) expanded the scope and extent of its 2014 maritime policy, earlier encapsulated in the acronym “SAGAR” (Security and Growth for All in the Region), thereby generating a new acronym “MAHASAGAR” (Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions) that encapsulates its current maritime policy.[26]  Just one letter “S” that has been added to the word ‘Region’ of the previous articulation of a decade hence, denotes the aspirational spread of India’s maritime outreach to the entire Indo-Pacific, and even beyond.  The Indian Navy, as the most easily projectable force — and mandated with the discharge of multifarious missions that fall within its combat, diplomatic, constabulary, and benign roles — is undoubtedly the most appropriate instrument to undertake the several tasks that are and will be associated with this maritime policy of ‘MAHASAGAR’.  In fulfilment of this endeavour, the Indian Navy will automatically be the prime actor to initiate the implementation of the recommended-response options for India within the Indo-Pacific.

******

About the Author:

Captain Kamlesh K Agnihotri, IN (Retd) is a Senior Fellow at the National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi.  His research concentrates on the manner in which the maritime ‘hard security’ geostrategies of India are impacted by those of China, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey.  He also delves into holistic maritime security challenges in the Indo-Pacific and their associated geopolitical dynamics. Views expressed in this article are personal.  He can be reached at kkumaragni@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1]Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Trends in China Coast Guard and Other Vessels in the Waters Surrounding the Senkaku Islands, and Japan’s Response”, 01 April 2025, https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page23e_000021.html

[2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “numbers of China Coast Guard and other vessels that entered Japan’s contiguous zone or intruded into territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku Islands”, https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100647455.pdf

[3] Japan’s Ministry of Defence, “Defense of Japan 2024”, 19 September 2024, p. 76 https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2024/DOJ2024_EN_Full.pdf

[4] Kosuke Takahashi and Gabriel Dominguez, “Japan detects suspected Chinese submarine near southern island”, Janes, 13 September 2021 https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/sea/japan-detects-suspected-chinese-submarine-near-southern-island

[5] Kamlesh K Agnihotri and Aashima Kapoor, “Defence of Japan- 2024 (Digest): A Critical Review”, National Maritime Foundation Website, 25 August 2024, https://maritimeindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Aashima-Kapoor-Capt-KK-Agnihotri-Review-of-Def-of-Japan-2024-Digest-1.pdf

[6] The State Council of People’s Republic of China, “China releases white paper on Taiwan question, reunification in new era”, 10 August 2022, https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/202208/10/ content_WS62f34f46c6d02e533532f0ac.html

[7] Captain Kamlesh K Agnihotri, “Contemporary Taiwan Strait Situation and Global Security Order: India’s role in maintaining ‘Balance of Power’?”, Centre for Chinese Studies, Taiwan, 01 October 2024, https://ccs.ncl.edu.tw/ccs2/research_info.aspx?sn=101821&type=taiwanScholar

[8] Yang Tai-yuan, “Differences between the Three Military Exercises of the People’s Liberation Army Encircling Taiwan”, Institute of Chinese Communist Studies, 27 May 2024, https://iccs.org.tw/en/NewsContent/190,

[9] Li Weichao, “Chinese Eastern Theater Command Conducts Joint Sword 2024B Drills”, China military, 14 October 2024, http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/CHINA_209163/TopStories_209189/16345114.html

[10] Christie Chen, “Taiwan condemns China’s military drills as ‘irrational provocations’”, Focus Taiwan/ CNA English News, 14 October 2024, https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202410145001(accessed 03 April 2025)

[11] Tai-yuan Yang, K. Tristan Tang, “Strait Thunder-2025A’ Drill Implies Future Increase in PLA Pressure on Taiwan”, China Brief of Jamestown Foundation, Vol 25, Issue: 7, 11 April 2025, https://jamestown.org/program/strait-thunder-2025a-drill-implies-future-increase-in-pla-pressure-on-taiwan/

[12]Amy Hawkins, “Taiwan foreign minister warns of conflict with China in 2027”,  The Guardian, 21 April 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/21/taiwan-foreign-minister-warns-of-conflict-with-china-in-2027#:~:text=US%20intelligence%20believes%20that%20Xi,be%20reunited%20with%20the%20mainland.

Also see Robert Delaney “Xi Jinping has yet to decide whether to order Taiwan unification by 2027: top US military adviser”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2023, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/ 3226202/xi-jinping-has-yet-decide-whether-order-taiwan-unification-2027-top-us-military-adviser

[13] The Chinese Letter CML/18/2009 of 07 May 2009 in response to Vietnam’s submission dated 07 May 2009, to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. https://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/ submissions_files/vnm37_09/chn_2009re_vnm.pdf

[14] Permanent Court of Arbitration, “PCA Case No. 2013-19 In the matter of the South China Sea Arbitration”, 12 July 2016, pp. 473-76, https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf

[15] The ‘Bamboo Diplomacy’ was introduced by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyễn Phú Trong in 2016, and refers to Vietnam’s approach to foreign policy, rooted in principles of flexibility, resilience, and independence. The concept is based on the bamboo tree, which has these inherent characteristics. See DiPLO, “Bamboo Diplomacy”, https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/bamboo-diplomacy/

[16] Kawala Xie, “China, Philippines in Scarborough Shoal naval encounter ahead of US joint drills”,  South China Morning Post, 21 April 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3307296/china-philippines-scarborough-shoal-naval-encounter-ahead-us-joint-drills

[17] Aaron-Matthew Lariosa, “New Philippine Laws Define Maritime Zones in the South China Sea”, USNI News, 12 November 2024, https://news.usni.org/2024/11/12/new-philippine-laws-define-maritime-zones-in-the-south-china-sea

[18] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The People’s Republic of China, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on China’s release of the Baselines and Base Points of the Territorial Sea Adjacent to Huangyan Dao”, 10 November 2024, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/202411/t20241110_11524122.html .

Also See Benar News, “Beijing draws baselines around shoal in Manila’s jurisdiction to fortify claims”, 11 November 2024, https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/philippine/china-draws-baselines-around-scarborough-11112024143908.html

[19] Jay Tarriela, X (Formerly Twitter) Post, 31 August 2024, 1:47 PM, https://x.com/jaytaryela/status/1829795642484670573

[20] Captain Kamlesh K Agnihotri, “Contemporary Taiwan Strait Situation and Global Security Order: India’s role in maintaining ‘Balance of Power’?”, ibid.

[21] Kamlesh K Agnihotri, “The perils of a China-centric World”, Taipei Times, 03 June 2024, https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2024/06/03/2003818775

[22] India’s secondary areas of maritime interest extend eastwards to the South and East China Seas, Western Pacific Ocean, and their littoral regions. See Indian Navy, “Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy” (IMSS-2015), (New Delhi: Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy), 2015), p. 32.

[23] Indian Navy, “Ensuring Secure Seas: Indian Maritime Security Strategy” ibid.

[24] Most of these recommendations have been covered in the Author’s earlier writings. For instance, see Captain Kamlesh K Agnihotri, “Contemporary Taiwan Strait Situation and Global Security Order: India’s role in maintaining ‘Balance of Power’?”, ibid.

[25] Kamlesh K Agnihotri and Nirmal M Shankar, “India’s Outlook Towards South-East Asia and Beyond: ‘Changing Tack’ in Contemporary Environment??”, National Maritime Foundation, 22 August 2023, https://maritimeindia.org/20901-2/

[26] Ministry of External Affairs, “Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi announced Vision MAHASAGAR- “Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions” for the Global South in Mauritius”, 12 March 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/newsdetail1.htm?13355/