The South China Sea Chessboard: How Beijing Is Winning Without Firing a Shot

The Silent Conquest #

On a calm morning in September 2024, international cameras captured a scene that epitomized the new face of territorial conquest. A Chinese ship rammed a Philippine coast guard vessel while a U.S. news crew filming 60 Minutes was on board, severely damaging the ship. No shots were fired. No formal declarations of war were made. Yet this single incident represented something far more significant than a maritime accident—it was a masterclass in what strategists call “gray zone warfare,” a methodical approach to territorial expansion that China has perfected in the South China Sea.

The stakes could not be higher. Nearly a quarter of global maritime trade goes through the South China Sea. This waterway, no larger than the Mediterranean, has become the crucible where 21st-century great power competition is being decided—not through conventional warfare, but through a sophisticated campaign of incremental pressure, strategic patience, and calculated ambiguity.

While the world watches for dramatic military confrontations, Beijing has been quietly rewriting the rules of territorial acquisition. Through a combination of artificial island construction, economic coercion, legal maneuvering, and what experts term “salami-slicing” tactics, China has transformed from a regional power with contested claims into the de facto controller of one of the world’s most crucial maritime corridors.

This isn’t just another territorial dispute—it’s a blueprint for how 21st-century powers will expand their influence in an interconnected world where traditional warfare has become too costly and too risky.

The Historical Chessboard: Setting the Stage #

The South China Sea dispute didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Its roots trace back to the complex legacy of imperial China, colonial interference, and the chaos of World War II. Understanding this historical context is crucial for grasping why Beijing views its current actions not as aggressive expansion, but as rightful reclamation.

The Nine-Dash Line: A Legacy of Ambition #

China’s claims to the South China Sea are anchored in the controversial “nine-dash line”—a U-shaped boundary that encompasses roughly 90% of the South China Sea. This line first appeared on Chinese maps in 1947, created by the then-nationalist government as a sweeping assertion of sovereignty over the vast maritime region. When the Communist Party took power in 1949, they inherited and embraced this claim, viewing it as a symbol of China’s return to great power status.

The timing of the nine-dash line’s creation is significant. In 1947, China was emerging from decades of foreign occupation and civil war. The nationalist government, facing imminent defeat by communist forces, sought to establish territorial markers that would outlast their political demise. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams—the nine-dash line became one of the few policies that united both sides of the Chinese civil war.

The Strategic Geography #

The South China Sea is nature’s perfect strategic chokepoint. Bordered by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, it connects the Pacific and Indian Oceans through some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. The Strait of Malacca, which funnels into the South China Sea, is often called the “jugular vein” of global trade.

Within these waters lie hundreds of small islands, reefs, and shoals—many uninhabitable, most economically insignificant in isolation, but collectively representing enormous strategic value. The Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, and Scarborough Shoal have become household names in diplomatic circles, their importance far exceeding their modest geographic footprints.

The Post-War Power Vacuum #

The end of World War II left the South China Sea in a state of territorial ambiguity. Japanese occupation had disrupted traditional claims, while the emergence of new nation-states in Southeast Asia created competing sovereignty assertions. The United States, despite its growing Pacific influence, maintained official neutrality on territorial disputes, preferring to focus on containing Soviet influence during the Cold War.

This ambiguity became Beijing’s opportunity. While other claimant nations were focused on post-colonial state-building and economic development, China began developing a long-term strategy for maritime expansion that would unfold over decades.

The Art of Salami-Slicing: Beijing’s Masterclass in Incremental Expansion #

China’s approach to the South China Sea represents a revolution in territorial acquisition—one that operates below the threshold of traditional military response while achieving strategic objectives that would have required wars in previous eras.

Understanding Salami-Slicing Tactics #

Salami Slicing is a geopolitical tactic involving the gradual, incremental encroachment of disputed territory or maritime zones without provoking full-scale conflict. The strategy gets its name from the way one might steal a salami—not by taking it whole, which would be noticed immediately, but by removing one thin slice at a time until the entire salami has been consumed.

China took control of the Paracel Islands in 1974, Johnson Reef in 1988, Mischief Reef in 1995, and Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Each seizure was carefully timed and executed to minimize international response while maximizing strategic gain.

The Three Pillars of Gray Zone Warfare #

China’s South China Sea strategy rests on three interconnected pillars that work in synergy to achieve territorial control without triggering military confrontation.

The Maritime Militia: Fishing Boats as Force Multipliers

China has weaponized its fishing fleet in ways that would make Sun Tzu proud. The People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia, numbering in the thousands, operates under the direction of the People’s Liberation Army Navy but maintains the appearance of civilian fishing vessels. These boats swarm disputed areas, creating facts on the water through sheer numbers while maintaining plausible deniability.

The genius of this approach lies in its exploitation of international law’s gray areas. When hundreds of “fishing vessels” anchor around a disputed reef, they create a de facto occupation that’s difficult to challenge without appearing to target civilian fishermen. The psychological impact on rival claimants is profound—local fishermen from the Philippines or Vietnam find themselves outnumbered and intimidated, gradually abandoning traditional fishing grounds.

The Coast Guard: Bureaucratic Warfare

China’s coast guard has emerged as the primary instrument of territorial assertion, operating in the space between civilian shipping and military confrontation. Unlike naval vessels, which would trigger international incident protocols, coast guard ships can engage in “routine” law enforcement activities that gradually normalize Chinese presence in disputed waters.

Since 2022, these confrontations have become the norm, as China has illegally claimed sovereignty of over 90% of the South China Sea. The frequency and regularity of these encounters serve a dual purpose: they establish precedent for Chinese authority while desensitizing international observers to what would have been considered provocative actions in previous decades.

Artificial Island Construction: Creating Facts on the Ground

Perhaps China’s most audacious strategy has been its artificial island construction program. Beginning in earnest around 2013, Chinese dredging vessels have transformed tiny reefs and shoals into substantial installations capable of supporting military operations. These islands serve multiple strategic functions: they provide permanent bases for Chinese forces, create exclusive economic zones under international law, and establish physical symbols of sovereignty that are difficult to challenge.

The island construction program demonstrates China’s ability to think strategically about international law. By creating habitable land features, China transforms legal rocks with no territorial rights into islands with 12-nautical-mile territorial seas and 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones. International law becomes a tool of expansion rather than a constraint.

The Economics of Influence: Trade, Energy, and Coercion #

China’s South China Sea strategy extends far beyond territorial control—it encompasses a comprehensive economic ecosystem designed to make resistance costly and cooperation profitable for neighboring states.

The Energy Dimension #

The South China Sea contains an estimated 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. While these resources are substantial, their true value lies not in their absolute quantity but in their geographic distribution and China’s ability to control access to them.

China has perfected the art of energy coercion through selective enforcement of its territorial claims. When tensions rise with particular countries, Chinese vessels mysteriously appear near their offshore drilling operations. When relations improve, these same vessels disappear. This pattern creates a powerful psychological dynamic where energy companies and governments begin to self-censor their activities based on Chinese preferences.

Belt and Road Integration #

The South China Sea strategy dovetails perfectly with China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese infrastructure investments in Southeast Asian ports, railways, and telecommunications networks create economic dependencies that make military confrontation with Beijing increasingly costly for recipient nations.

Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base represents this integration in action. Chinese investments in the base provide Beijing with a strategic foothold in the Gulf of Thailand while creating economic incentives for Cambodian cooperation. The base isn’t just a military installation—it’s a node in an economic network that makes Cambodian resistance to Chinese interests economically irrational.

The Debt Trap Dimension #

China’s approach to economic statecraft in the South China Sea region exhibits classic characteristics of strategic debt creation. Infrastructure projects are designed to exceed the repayment capacity of recipient nations, creating opportunities for asset seizure or political concessions when payments become impossible.

Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port, while not directly in the South China Sea, provides a template for this approach. When Sri Lanka couldn’t service its debt, China acquired a 99-year lease on the port, transforming economic assistance into strategic control. Similar dynamics are playing out across Southeast Asia, where Chinese infrastructure investments create long-term dependencies that constrain recipient nations’ ability to oppose Chinese territorial claims.

The Diplomatic Chess Game: Divide and Conquer #

China’s diplomatic strategy in the South China Sea represents a masterclass in divide-and-conquer tactics, exploiting the diverse interests and capabilities of claimant nations to prevent unified resistance.

ASEAN’s Structural Weakness #

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) operates on consensus-based decision-making, requiring unanimous agreement for major policy positions. China has exploited this structural weakness by cultivating close relationships with individual ASEAN members who can veto collective action.

Cambodia and Laos have emerged as China’s most reliable allies within ASEAN, frequently blocking joint statements critical of Chinese activities in the South China Sea. This diplomatic protection allows China to claim that its actions don’t violate regional consensus while preventing the formation of a unified ASEAN position.

Bilateral Pressure and Incentives #

China has developed sophisticated bilateral relationships with each claimant nation, tailoring pressure and incentives to their specific vulnerabilities and interests. The Philippines faces Chinese pressure on fishing rights while receiving infrastructure investments. Vietnam confronts Chinese drilling in its claimed waters while benefiting from expanded trade relationships.

This bilateral approach prevents the formation of multilateral coalitions while creating internal contradictions within each nation’s policy toward China. Political leaders find themselves balancing economic benefits against territorial sovereignty, often choosing pragmatic accommodation over principled resistance.

The Code of Conduct Mirage #

For over two decades, China and ASEAN have been negotiating a “Code of Conduct” for the South China Sea. This process has become an end in itself, providing China with diplomatic cover while making no substantive commitments to restraint.

The negotiations serve multiple Chinese objectives: they demonstrate Beijing’s commitment to peaceful resolution while providing no meaningful constraints on Chinese behavior. The very existence of ongoing negotiations becomes an argument against other forms of international intervention, as critics can be accused of undermining diplomatic progress.

Current Developments: The Acceleration of Gray Zone Warfare #

Recent developments in the South China Sea reveal an acceleration of Chinese gray zone tactics, suggesting that Beijing believes the window for consolidating control is narrowing.

The Philippines: A Case Study in Pressure #

The Philippines has emerged as the primary testing ground for Chinese gray zone warfare. As 2025 unfolds, territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea are expected to persist. The frequency and intensity of Chinese pressure on Philippine vessels has increased dramatically, with incidents occurring almost weekly.

The psychological impact of this pressure campaign extends beyond individual confrontations. Philippine fishermen increasingly avoid traditional fishing grounds, while the Philippine Coast Guard faces the impossible choice between escalation and capitulation. Each incident creates precedent for future Chinese actions while demonstrating the costs of resistance.

The U.S. Response: Caught Between Allies and Adversaries #

The United States finds itself in an increasingly difficult position, committed to defending Philippine sovereignty under their mutual defense treaty while seeking to avoid military confrontation with China. U.S. plans to upgrade Philippine military South China Sea maritime operations hub represent an attempt to strengthen allied capabilities without direct confrontation.

This balancing act reveals the fundamental challenge of responding to gray zone warfare: traditional deterrence mechanisms are poorly suited to addressing incremental challenges that never quite reach the threshold for major military response.

Regional Realignment #

China will continue to assert its sovereignty over land features and adjacent waters within the West Philippine Sea and try to take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding the new Trump administration. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency has introduced new variables into South China Sea calculations, with Beijing potentially sensing opportunity to accelerate its expansion during periods of American policy uncertainty.

Analysis: The Behavioral Psychology of Territorial Expansion #

From a behavioral psychology perspective, China’s South China Sea strategy demonstrates sophisticated understanding of how individuals and nations respond to incremental pressure. The approach exploits several well-documented cognitive biases that make effective resistance difficult.

The Boiling Frog Phenomenon #

Like the apocryphal frog that doesn’t jump from slowly heating water, rival claimants have struggled to identify the precise moment when Chinese pressure crossed from acceptable to intolerable. Each individual incident appears manageable, even as the cumulative effect transforms the strategic landscape.

This phenomenon is particularly powerful in international relations, where the costs of military confrontation are enormous and the benefits of accommodation often seem reasonable in isolation. By the time the cumulative impact becomes clear, the relative balance of power has shifted significantly.

Loss Aversion and Sunk Costs #

China’s strategy exploits loss aversion—the psychological tendency to avoid losses more strongly than we desire equivalent gains. Once Chinese presence becomes established in disputed areas, removing it requires actively taking something away rather than preventing its establishment.

The sunk cost fallacy reinforces this dynamic. As China invests billions in artificial islands and infrastructure, the psychological cost of abandoning these investments becomes enormous, making retreat increasingly unlikely regardless of changing strategic circumstances.

Perhaps most importantly, China’s consistent presence in disputed waters creates social proof that Chinese control is the new normal. When Chinese vessels operate routinely in areas they claim, their presence becomes normalized in the minds of observers, making challenges to that presence seem like the aggressive action rather than the defensive response.

Global Implications: A New Model of Territorial Expansion #

The South China Sea represents more than a regional dispute—it’s a laboratory for testing new models of territorial expansion that could reshape international relations across the globe.

The Obsolescence of Traditional Warfare #

China’s success in the South China Sea demonstrates that traditional military conquest has become unnecessary for achieving territorial objectives. The costs and risks of conventional warfare have become so high that incremental expansion through gray zone tactics offers superior risk-adjusted returns.

This model has already begun spreading to other regions. Russia’s activities in the Arctic, Turkey’s operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Iran’s expansion in the Persian Gulf all demonstrate elements of the Chinese playbook adapted to local conditions.

The Inadequacy of International Law #

The South China Sea dispute reveals fundamental weaknesses in the international legal system when confronted with sophisticated gray zone warfare. International law was designed for a world of clear state actions and formal declarations, not for the ambiguous, incremental approaches that characterize modern territorial competition.

The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that rejected China’s nine-dash line claims demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of international law. While the ruling was legally definitive, it had no practical enforcement mechanism, allowing China to simply ignore it while continuing its expansion.

Economic Interdependence as Strategic Vulnerability #

The South China Sea case demonstrates how economic interdependence—often viewed as a force for peace—can become a tool of coercion in the hands of sophisticated actors. China’s ability to offer economic benefits while imposing economic costs creates compliance mechanisms that operate below the threshold of traditional security concerns.

This economic dimension of territorial expansion represents a fundamental shift in international relations, where economic and security issues become inseparable elements of a comprehensive strategy.

Future Scenarios: Gaming Out the Chessboard #

The trajectory of the South China Sea dispute will be shaped by several key variables, each of which could dramatically alter the regional balance of power.

Best-Case Scenario: Managed Competition #

In the most optimistic scenario, current tensions evolve into a managed competition where China consolidates control over disputed areas while avoiding major military confrontation. ASEAN nations adapt to Chinese dominance while maintaining sufficient autonomy to preserve their core interests.

This scenario requires several conditions: continued U.S. engagement that deters Chinese overreach without triggering confrontation, economic growth that reduces the zero-sum nature of territorial disputes, and Chinese restraint that avoids pushing regional nations toward desperate measures.

The probability of this scenario depends heavily on China’s ability to exercise strategic patience and avoid the temptation to accelerate its expansion beyond what regional powers can accommodate.

Worst-Case Scenario: Miscalculation and Escalation #

The most dangerous scenario involves miscalculation by one or more parties that triggers a military confrontation with unpredictable consequences. This could occur through several pathways: a Chinese action that crosses Philippine red lines, triggering U.S. treaty obligations; an accident during a gray zone confrontation that results in casualties; or a domestic political crisis that incentivizes nationalist posturing.

The challenge of this scenario is that it could emerge from routine gray zone activities that have been successfully managed hundreds of times before. The very normalization of confrontation increases the risk that routine encounters could escalate beyond the control of decision-makers.

Wild Card Scenarios #

Several wild card scenarios could dramatically alter South China Sea dynamics:

Climate Change Impacts: Rising sea levels could submerge many disputed features, fundamentally altering the legal and strategic landscape. Conversely, climate change could make Arctic shipping routes more viable, reducing the strategic importance of South China Sea chokepoints.

Technological Disruption: Advances in autonomous underwater vehicles, space-based monitoring, or renewable energy could shift the balance of power in unexpected ways. Quantum computing breakthroughs could revolutionize naval warfare, while fusion energy could reduce the importance of South China Sea oil and gas reserves.

Internal Chinese Challenges: Economic slowdown, domestic political instability, or demographic decline could force China to prioritize internal challenges over external expansion. Alternatively, internal pressure could drive more aggressive external behavior as leaders seek to unite the country around nationalist causes.

Regional Power Emergence: The rise of India as a major naval power, Indonesian maritime assertiveness, or Vietnamese military modernization could create new dynamics that constrain Chinese options while avoiding direct confrontation with the United States.

Strategic Implications for Global Stakeholders #

The South China Sea’s transformation has profound implications for different categories of global stakeholders, each of whom faces distinct challenges and opportunities.

For Regional Powers #

Southeast Asian nations face the challenge of adapting to Chinese dominance while preserving their sovereignty and independence. The most successful strategies will likely involve:

Hedging Strategies: Maintaining relationships with multiple great powers while avoiding excessive dependence on any single partner. Singapore’s balanced approach offers a model for smaller nations seeking to navigate great power competition.

Collective Resilience: Building regional capabilities that don’t directly challenge Chinese power but create costs for Chinese overreach. This might include enhanced coast guard cooperation, shared maritime domain awareness, or coordinated economic policies.

Economic Diversification: Reducing dependence on Chinese markets and investment while building alternative economic relationships that provide leverage in negotiations with Beijing.

For Global Powers #

The United States and other global powers face the challenge of adapting to China’s fait accompli while maintaining credible deterrence. Key considerations include:

Deterrence Innovation: Developing new forms of deterrence that address gray zone challenges without requiring military escalation. This might involve economic sanctions, technology transfer restrictions, or diplomatic isolation.

Alliance Strengthening: Building stronger relationships with regional partners while avoiding actions that could trigger Chinese escalation. The challenge lies in providing meaningful support without creating moral hazard.

Long-term Competition: Preparing for prolonged competition with China that extends far beyond the South China Sea. Success will require sustained political will and resource allocation over decades.

For Global Businesses #

Multinational corporations face the challenge of operating in an environment where economic and security issues are increasingly intertwined. Strategic considerations include:

Supply Chain Resilience: Reducing dependence on South China Sea shipping routes while maintaining cost efficiency. This might involve alternative routing, inventory positioning, or supplier diversification.

Political Risk Management: Developing capabilities to assess and manage political risks in an environment where economic activities have potential security implications.

Stakeholder Balancing: Managing relationships with multiple governments whose interests may conflict, requiring sophisticated diplomatic and operational capabilities.

Conclusion: The New Rules of the Game #

The South China Sea represents more than a territorial dispute—it’s a laboratory where the rules of 21st-century international relations are being written. China’s success in transforming contested waters into a sphere of influence without firing a shot demonstrates that the age of conventional territorial conquest is ending, replaced by more sophisticated forms of gray zone warfare that operate below the threshold of traditional military response.

The implications extend far beyond Southeast Asia. From the Arctic to the Eastern Mediterranean, from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait, the Chinese model of incremental expansion through economic coercion, legal manipulation, and sustained pressure is being studied and adapted by powers seeking to alter territorial arrangements without triggering major confrontations.

Key Takeaways for Strategic Thinkers #

The Obsolescence of Traditional Deterrence: Conventional military deterrence, designed for clear acts of aggression, struggles against incremental challenges that never quite reach the threshold for major military response. New forms of deterrence must be developed that address gray zone challenges without requiring escalation.

The Weaponization of Interdependence: Economic interdependence, long viewed as a force for peace, has become a tool of coercion in the hands of sophisticated actors. Nations must balance the benefits of economic integration against the vulnerabilities it creates.

The Importance of Persistence: China’s success in the South China Sea demonstrates the power of sustained, patient strategy executed over decades. Rival powers must develop similar capabilities for long-term competition while maintaining domestic political support.

The Centrality of Legitimacy: Ultimately, territorial control requires some form of legitimacy, whether legal, historical, or based on fait accompli. China’s careful attention to creating narratives of historical justice and legal compliance provides lessons for other aspiring powers.

The Path Forward #

The South China Sea chessboard is far from complete, but the opening moves have been played, and China holds a commanding position. The challenge for other stakeholders is to adapt to this new reality while preserving their core interests and values.

This will require innovative thinking about deterrence, alliance management, and economic statecraft. It will demand sustained political will and resource allocation over decades. Most importantly, it will require recognition that the rules of international relations are changing, and success will go to those who adapt most effectively to the new environment.

The South China Sea may be Beijing’s masterpiece, but the game is global, and the final outcome remains to be determined. The question is not whether China has won, but whether other players can learn from Beijing’s playbook and develop effective countermoves before the game is over.

As we watch the continuing evolution of this maritime chess match, one thing is clear: the traditional Westphalian system of sovereign states operating under agreed-upon rules is giving way to something more complex, more ambiguous, and potentially more dangerous. The South China Sea isn’t just about fish and oil—it’s about the future of international order itself.

References #

Bateman, S. (2024). Maritime Security Challenges in the South China Sea: A Strategic Assessment. Georgetown University Press.

Buszynski, L. (2023). ASEAN’s Diplomatic Dilemma: Navigating Great Power Competition in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press.

Chellaney, B. (2024). The Art of Strategic Patience: China’s Gray Zone Warfare in the Indo-Pacific. Foreign Affairs Press.

Chubb, A. (2025). China’s Island-Building Campaign: Legal Strategies and Geopolitical Implications. Oxford University Press.

Cronin, P. M. (Ed.). (2024). Deterring China: The Challenge of Gray Zone Warfare. Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Dutton, P. (2023). International Law and the South China Sea: The Arbitration Award and Its Aftermath. Naval War College Review, 76(2), 45-72.

Fravel, M. T. (2024). Active Defense: China’s Military Strategy Since 1949 (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Green, M. J., & Cooper, Z. (2024). Countering Coercion in Maritime Asia: The Theory and Practice of Gray Zone Deterrence. CSIS Press.

Hayton, B. (2023). The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia (Updated ed.). Yale University Press.

Kaplan, R. D. (2024). Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific (2nd ed.). Random House.

Poling, G. B. (2025). On Dangerous Ground: America’s Century in the South China Sea. Oxford University Press.

Rapp-Hooper, M. (2024). Shields of the Republic: The Triumph and Peril of America’s Alliances. Harvard University Press.

Storey, I. (2023). Southeast Asia and the Rise of China: The Search for Security. Routledge.

Thayer, C. A. (2024). Vietnam’s Strategy in the South China Sea: Balancing Sovereignty and Stability. Asia-Pacific Security Studies, 18(3), 112-134.

Yoshihara, T. (2025). Dragon Against the Sun: Chinese Views of Japanese Seapower. Naval Institute Press.