Countering China’s Maritime Narrative: The Role of Journalism in Gray Zone Conflict

The free press has done little to hold Western elected leaders accountable for their complacence and negligence in their duty to provide for the common defense. Allies and partners are critical to the security of Western nations and the values and interests they uphold, but this fact is often taken for granted. Allies and partners need to know they will be supported against belligerent actors like China, but too often Western political leaders are reticent to take substantive action due to fears of escalation. As a consequence, allies and partners begin to question Western commitment to their defense and resort to hedging strategies that erode the relationship.

Challenges and Solutions

Western press does not emphasize the importance of strong relationships with allies and partners on deterrence against adversaries, thus our risk-averse leaders feel no pressure to hold authoritarian countries accountable for undermining the rules-based international order and the free and open societies it promotes. Journalists have a sacred responsibility in this defense endeavor, which involves informing the public about threats to their way of life, highlighting the shortfalls of Western political and military leadership, and also making politicians answer for their inaction on national security matters.

For over a decade, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has employed gray zone tactics to assert apocryphal claims of sovereignty over vast swathes of territory on its periphery with no regard for the territorial claims of its neighbors. Despite a 2016 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) tribunal that ruled against China’s excessive territorial claims, China published a map in 2024 with a ten-dash line encapsulating territory in the South and East China Sea. China has since disguised various diplomatic, economic, and military intimidation tactics as domestic policing initiatives to disrupt other claimants’ operations and activities.

The CCP’s territorial subterfuge employs riot-control tactics akin to those used in locations like Tiananmen and Hong Kong. The CCP accompanies these actions with messaging similar to the narrative used for internal policing matters, juxtaposed with claims of securing claimed sovereign territory. The penetration of this messaging can be seen in Western media’s continued reference to “disputed areas”, “competing claimants” and “highly contested” claims, which places China’s assertions of sovereignty on par with those of the Philippines and Vietnam, even though the territory in question is well within the internationally recognized exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the latter countries.

This Chinese strategy is not new, or even reserved to enforcement of South China Sea claims. During a series of incidents along the Line of Actual Control between India and China from 2020 to 2023, Chinese and Indian soldiers clashed with melee weapons, resulting in at least two dozen deaths. This followed years of infrastructure buildup on the Chinese side of the border, which had induced a security dilemma for India and resulted in reciprocal buildup. While the culminating violent confrontations were covered in Western media, they were treated as isolated events and not part of a larger CCP strategy to intimidate neighbors through military buildup and employment of gray zone tactics. By failing to tie the clashes with India to the CCP’s grandiose assertions of sovereignty elsewhere, the media allowed Western officials to respond with perfunctory condemnations and offers of mediation, but no real action to deter future aggression.   This decision to employ rhetoric over action has empowered the CCP to accelerate escalation with countries along its periphery.

Since 2023, China’s military gray zone strategy has been especially pernicious within the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) , all in an attempt to dissuade Philippine activity in areas claimed by China. In the last couple years, Chinese Navy and Coast Guard vessels have employed water cannons, sonar, and even swords to intimidate and deter Philippine sailors resupplying a military outpost on Scarborough Shoal. While Western officials have condemned these attacks, they have not done anything to counter them. This toothless response has encouraged the CCP to escalate harassment in areas like Sabina Shoal, which is only 75 miles away from Palawan and well within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In every instance, China is careful to keep provocations just below the level of modern armed conflict, whilst still pushing the envelope to elicit a reaction. Lethality in encounters with the Philippines would risk triggering the 1951 US–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. However, China has successfully transferred the riot tactics it used along the border with India as well as in quelling domestic unrest to the internationally recognized EEZ of the Philippines.

This is one of the most tenuous and consequential conflicts in the world which coincides with a substantial deployment of US troops to the Philippines. Yet, if asked about the dispute most Westerners would likely get several key facts wrong about it. For one, they might assume that the South China Sea belongs to China simply due to its name. The media could reshape this public perception by following the Philippine naming convention for the sea within their 200 nautical mile EEZ, identifying the area as the West Philippine Sea instead of the South China Sea. This is especially relevant because China’s claims to the territory were invalidated by a 2016 ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration of UNCLOS. Further, many underestimate how intentional of a conflict this is because it is generally framed as fishing boats ramming each other. This obfuscates the reality that China is utilizing large Coast Guard vessels and maritime militia fleets to intentionally endanger smaller Philippines vessels and crews operating in Scarborough and Sabina Shoal.

Chinese actions in the waters of the Philippines have proven a little too easy to play down for Western journalists owing to the seemingly crude nature of the violence used by the Chinese side. Journalists and academics have lumped employment of this violence into the catch-all category of “gray zone” tactics, which includes anything that falls short of war. As recently at 4 December 2024, Chinese Coast Guard vessels “side-swiped” and used water cannons on a smaller Philippine vessel near Scarborough Shoal, only 140 nautical miles from the Philippines’ Luzon Island, but coverage continued to present both sides as potentially legitimate. China is treating problems in claimed territory of the South China Sea as domestic issues, demonstrated by the obvious parallels to their authoritarian approach with domestic dissidents in places like Tiananmen and Hong Kong. Western media’s determination not to take sides helps elevate China’s invalid claims and drives the narrative of a legitimate territorial dispute, rather than what it is: an attempt at forcible annexation from China.

The Philippines is a democracy on the frontlines against authoritarianism and has had a lasting relationship with the West, which over the decades has included joint military bases as well as economic and disaster relief cooperation. If such a steadfast partner as the Philippines can be subject to authoritarian intimidation tactics without facing consequences, then why would other countries have confidence in the West’s commitment to their security?

The US and its allies must demonstrate they are steadfast and reliable partners willing to take risks to uphold commitments to allies, partners, and the rules-based international order. Unfortunately, when the media plays down the CCP’s attempt to enforce a Monroe Doctrine with Chinese characteristics in the Indo-Pacific, it reduces pressure on Western political leaders to establish and enforce red lines. If confidence in the USU.S. led international system crumbles, alternative values and norms promoted by authoritarian regimes like the CCP will endanger the free and open society that enables journalism to thrive and serve the people.

Conclusion

This should be an opportunity for reflection by journalists and editors. What is the tipping point after which the media begins to highlight the injustices being done by China against an American ally? When will the media begin to pressure US politicians to secure our allies and partners in the region and uphold international commitments? Now is the time for journalists to bring awareness to the American people regarding China’s new attempts at norm building while there is still an opportunity to influence US leaders and build cohesion among partners.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Air Force, or the U.S. Government.

The post Countering China’s Maritime Narrative: The Role of Journalism in Gray Zone Conflict appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.