Abstract
The chapter aims to understand how the introduction of new military technology—in particular robotic unmanned technology—would influence the waters of the SCS. Currently it is clear that the conflict in the SCS has been heating up and that its waters are becoming unruly. Albeit unruly it has not turned yet into to a storm, which in the author’s opinion can be contributed to a delicate political balance in place. However, history has shown that the introduction of new military technology—and the absence of norms and values on how to use and counter them—could radically change a military and political situation. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to understand whether the robotics revolution will change the situation in the SCS, how it will change this and what this would mean for the future direction of the disputes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CSS, NPS, RAND and US-CN ESRC are all US government organizations.
- 2.
It needs to be noted that due to language restrictions the author has only be able to look at literature published in English/German/Dutch.
- 3.
The so called nine dash line (also referred to as nine dotted line) refers to the demarcation line used by the PRC in the SCS. The original line consisted of 11 dashes and was first formulated by the ROC. With the change of government in 1949 the PRC took over the ROC claims, while the ROC—now in Taiwan—continued to claim the nine dash line simultaneously. As most of the territory claimed under the nine dash lines (90 % of the territory of the SCS) overlaps with Philippine, Vietnamese and Brunei claims in the SCS it has become one of main sources of conflict within the SCS. Currently, no legal framework underlays the claims (as they should be based on land masses, which China nor Taiwan does posses to the extent they can claim the degree they do now) and as such there are rejected by all other actors.
- 4.
Gearan (2014).
- 5.
- 6.
This would mark the first time that Japan air and naval military forces would be stationed for a longer period in non-Japanese Asian area of operations. For further information see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-04/japan-to-consider-expanding-navy-patrols-to-SCS (accessed on 24/02/2015) and http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/vietnams-extensive-strategic-partnership-with-japan/ (accessed on 24/02/2015).
- 7.
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-to-sell-warships-to-vietnam-increase-footprints-in-SCS-715108 (accessed on 27/02/2015).
- 8.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/07/us-defence-southeastasia-idUSBRE8960JY20121007 (accessed on 27/02/2015) and http://www.dw.de/sipri-southeast-asias-defense-build-up-is-a-balancing-act/a-17860646 (accessed on 27/02/2015).
- 9.
Of all actors involved in the SCS dispute only Taiwan has in the recent years decreased its military spending. All other actors have increased their defense spending.
- 10.
Ebbinghausen (2013).
- 11.
Blanchard and Lim (2011).
- 12.
- 13.
Keck (2014).
- 14.
E.g. the Chinese contribution to the anti-piracy mission off the Somali coast.
- 15.
Mc Donald (2014).
- 16.
However, the question here arises to which extent these systems are foreseen for the SCS area of operations, as a Taiwan strait conflict remains the clear military priority for Taiwan and the modernization of the PLAN has clearly affected the military balance in the Taiwan Strait as well.
- 17.
Speech by Japanese Prime Minister Shinizo Abe at the 44th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The speech can be found here http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/statement/201401/22speech_e.html (accessed 14/05/2015).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
Chang et al. (2015, p. 6).
- 21.
China for example considered a drone strike against a notorious drug lord which it sought to apprehend. It in the end decided to capture him, rather than sending armed UAVs. Nevertheless the fact that China considered this as viable option indicates to which extent apparently lethal UAV strikes are becoming accepted. For further information see: Perlez (2013). Furthermore, it could be argued that the air strikes of Egypt against Libya and the Saudi-Arabian air campaign against Yemen and the absence of real international objections are the result of the drone strikes campaign as well. As the drone strikes campaign were and is conducted unilaterally it thereby created possibilities for other nations to conduct their unilateral air strikes, such as in the case of the campaigns mentioned here. Drones might be absent in these campaigns, but this rather a due the absence of such systems.
- 22.
Chang et al. (2015, p. 9).
References
Ba, A. (2014). Managing the South China Sea dispute what can ASEAN Do? In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Beckerman, J. (2014, December 16). Northrop Grumman gets air force pact to provide drones for South Korea. Wall Street Journal Online. Accessed February 28, 105, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/northrop-grumman-gets-air-force-pact-to-provide-drones-for-south-korea-1418771697
Bitzinger, R. A. (2011, February). Southeast Asian military modernization: A new arms race? Powerpoint Presentation. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore.
Bitzinger, R. A. (2013, December). China’s ADIZ: South China Sea next? RSIS commentaries, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU, Singapore. Available at http://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CO13219.pdf
Blanchard, B., & Lim, B. (2011, July 27). China boosts naval power with carrier program. Reuters Press Agency. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-china-carrier-idUSTRE76Q1X120110727
Bradsher, K. (2013). U.S. forging closer military ties with Philippines. New York Times Online. Accessed February 24, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/world/asia/us-forging-closer-military-ties-with-philippines.html?gwh=A8EFA319BEF0095B61AD6C935A8BD8DB&gwt=pay
Brimley, S., FitzGerald, B., & Ratner, E. (2013, September 17). The drone war comes to Asia: How China sparked a dangerous unmanned arms race. Blog Post at Foreign Policy. Available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/17/the-drone-war-comes-to-asia/
Burgers, T. (2013). Drohnen über den Pazifik. Adlas Magazine für Sicherheitspolitik, 3(7).
Burgers, T. (2015, May/June). Why Taiwan should seek deploy unmanned systems in the SCS. Strategic Vision, 4(21). Taipei, ROC.
Chang, A., FitzGerald, B., & Jackson, V. (2015). Shades of gray: Technology, strategic competition, and stability in Maritime Asia. Washington, DC: Maritime Strateg Series, Center for New American Security.
Chase, M. S., Kristen A. G., Lyle J. M., Berkowitz, S. K., & Purser, B. S., III. (2015) Emerging trends in China’s development of unmanned systems. Rand Online Paper.
Chen, D. D. (2015). 4 problems for Chinese diplomacy. http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/4-headaches-for-chinese-diplomacy-in-2015/
Clouet, L.-M. (2012). Drones as future air power assets: The dawn of aviation 2.0? In E. Fels, J.-F. Kremer, & K. Kronenberg (Eds.), Power in the 21st century (Global power shift). Berlin: Springer.
Cohen, J. A. (2014). International arbitration and adjudication as South China Sea confidence-building measures. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Cronin, P. M. (2014). The rise of tailored coercion in the South China Sea. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Dowdy, J., Chinn, D., Mancini, M., & Ng, J. (2014, February). Southeast Asia: The next growth opportunity in defense. McKinsey Innovation Campus Aerospace and Defense Practice.
Easton, I. M., & Hsiao, R. (2013). The Chinese people’s liberation army’s unmanned aerial vehicle project: Organizational capacities and operational capabilities. Project 2049 report. Available at http://project2049.net/documents/uav_easton_hsiao.pdf
Ebbinghausen, R. (2013, March 18). The new arms race in Asia. Deutsche Welle. Available at http://www.dw.de/the-new-arms-race-in-asia/a-16681158
Farley, R. (2014, December 26). Holiday primer on salami slicing. The Diplomat. Available at http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/a-holiday-primer-on-salami-slicing/
Gady, F.-S. (2015, February 19). 4 US littoral combat ships to operate out of Singapore by 2018. The Diplomat. Accessed February 24, 2015, from http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/4-us-littoral-combat-ships-to-operate-out-of-singapore-by-2018/
Gearan, A. (2014, August 10). U.S., China tussle over sea claims. Washington Post Online. Accessed February 24, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-china-tussle-over-sea-claims/2014/08/10/2f613504-2085-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html
Glaser, B. S. (2012, April). Armed clash in the South China Sea (Contingency planning memorandum no. 14). Center for Preventive Action, Council for Foreign Relations.
Glaser, B. S. (2014). U.S. strategy seeks to calm the roiled waters of the South China Sea. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Graham, E. (2014). Confidence building without the political will in the South China Sea disputes. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Haddick, R. (2014, February 6). America has no answer to China’s Salami-Slicing. War on the Rocks Blog. Available at http://warontherocks.com/2014/02/america-has-no-answer-to-chinas-salami-slicing/
Heginbotham, E. (2014). The foreign policy essay: China’s ADIZ in the East China Sea. Lawfare Blog Post. Available at http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/08/the-foreign-policy-essay-chinas-adiz-in-the-east-china-sea/
Herscovitch, B. (2014). The east is authoritarian: Why China will not democratize. Policy, 30(1), Autumn.
Holmes, J. (2014, July). The danger zone in naval arms races. The Diplomat. Available at http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/the-danger-zone-in-naval-arms-races/
Hsu, K., Murray, C., Cook, J., & Feld, A. (2013, June). China’s military unmanned aerial vehicle industry. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Staff Research Backgrounder.
Jakobson, L. (2014, December). China’s unpredictable maritime security actors. Report for Lowy institute for international policy. Available at http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/chinas-unpredictable-maritime-security-actors
Jia, B. B. (2014). Four legal issues in relation to the South China Sea arbitration. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Kaplan, R. D. (2011, August 15). The South China Sea is the future of conflict. Blog Post at Foreign Policy. Available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/08/15/the-SCS-is-the-future-of-conflict/
Keck, Z. (2013, September 26). Drone warfare version 2.0: Great power edition. The Diplomat. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://thediplomat.com/2013/09/drone-warfare-version-2-0-great-power-edition/
Keck, Z. (2014, June 5). Cruise missiles: China’s real ‘Carrier Killer’. The Diplomat. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/cruise-missiles-chinas-real-carrier-killer/
Kim, Y. (2015). A comparison of the Anglo-German relationship in World War 1 era and the modern Sino-Japanese relationship. Focusing on implications for East-Asian territorial disputes. Konkuk University.
Koda, Y. (2014). Japan’s perspectives on U.S. policy toward the South China Sea. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Kuok, L. (2014, December). Overcoming the impasse in the South China Sea jointly defining EEZ claims (Center for East Asia Policy Studies Policy Paper No. 4).
Le Miere, C. (2014). Maritime diplomacy in the 21st century: Drivers and challenges. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lu, Y.-C. (2014). The South China Sea and great power politics: Implications for U.S.-China-Taiwan relations. Taipei, ROC: Department of Diplomacy, National Chengchi University.
Manyin, M. (2014, June). U.S.-Vietnam relations in 2014: Current issues and implications for U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service. Available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40208.pdf
Martinson, R. (2015, March 4). Reality check: China’s military power threatens America. The National Interest (Online). Available at http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/reality-check-chinas-military-power-threatens-america-12361
Mc Donald, H. (2014, December 18). Asia’s military budgets surge as armies go high-tech. Nikkei Asian Review. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20141218-MORE-MONEY-MORE-GUNS/Cover-Story/Asias-military-budgets-surge-as-armies-go-high-tech
McNeill, W. H. (1982). The pursuit of power: Technology, armed force and society since A.D. 1000 (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (September 15, 1984).
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2010). The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3, 381–396.
Mearsheimer. (2014, January–February). America unhinged. The National Interest.
Moss, T. (2013, March 2). Here come… China’s drones. The Diplomat. Accessed February, 28, from http://thediplomat.com/2013/03/here-comes-chinas-drones/
O’Callaghan, J. (2012, October 7). Southeast Asia splashes out on defense, mostly maritime. Reuters Press Agency. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/07/us-defence-southeastasia-idUSBRE8960JY20121007
O’Rourke, R. (2014, December). China naval modernization: Implications for U.S. navy capabilities—Background and issues for congress. Paper for the Congressional Research Service.
Osborn, K. (2014, October 29). China’s submarine fleet takes historic steps forward. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://defensetech.org/2014/10/29/chinas-submarine-fleet-takes-historic-steps-forward/
Page, J. (2014, October 24). Deep threat: China’s submarines add nuclear-strike capability, altering strategic balance. Wall Street Journal Online. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-submarine-fleet-adds-nuclear-strike-capability-altering-strategic-balance-undersea-1414164738
Parameswaran, P. (2015, February 20). The Philippine military wants US drones. The Diplomat. Accessed February 28, 2015, from http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/the-philippine-military-wants-us-drones/
Perlez, J. (2013, February 21). Chinese plan to kill drug lord with drone strike highlights military advances. The New York Times, p. A5.
Perlo-Freeman, S., & Solmirano, C. (2014). Trends in world military expenditure 2013 (SIPRI Fact Sheet). Stockholm, Sweden: SIPRI.
Scharre, P. (2012, November–December). Spectrum of what? Military Review.
Schofield, C. (1994). An arms race in the South China Sea? IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, July 1994.
Shams, S. (2014, August 19). SIPRI: Southeast Asia’s defense build-up is a balancing act. Deutsche Welle. Available at http://www.dw.de/sipri-southeast-asias-defense-build-up-is-a-balancing-act/a-17860646
Sharp, A., & Shi, T. (2015, February 4). Japan to mull expanding navy patrols to South China Sea. Bloomberg Online. Available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-04/japan-to-consider-expanding-navy-patrols-to-SCS
Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for war. New York: Penguin Press.
Taylor, B. (2014). The South China Sea is not a flashpoint. The Washington Quarterly, 37(1), 99–111.
Thayer, C. A. (2014a). Vietnam’s maritime forces. In M. Hiebert, N. Phuong, & G. B. Poling (Eds.), Perspectives on the South China Sea: Diplomatic, legal and security dimensions of the dispute (Report for the CSIS Sumitro Chair for South-East Asia Studies). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Thayer, C. A. (2014b, October 14). Vietnam’s extensive strategic partnership with Japan. The Diplomat. Available at http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/vietnams-extensive-strategic-partnership-with-japan/
Thies, W. J., & Bratoon, P. C. (2004). When governments collide in the Taiwan Strait. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 27(4), 556–584.
United States Department of Defense. (2013, May). Air sea battle concept summary. Available at http://www.defense.gov/pubs/ASB-ConceptImplementation-Summary-May-2013.pdf
Work and Brimley. (2014). 20YY: Preparing for war in the robotic age. Washington, DC: Center for New American Security.
Xu, C. (2011). The fundamental institutions of China’s reforms and development. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(4), 1076–1151.
Yang, C. (2015, February). South China Sea policy. Strategic Vision for Taiwan Security, 4(19).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burgers, T.J. (2016). An Unmanned South China Sea? Understanding the Risks and Implications of the Arrival of the Digital and Robotic Revolution in Military Affairs in the SCS. In: Fels, E., Vu, TM. (eds) Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters. Global Power Shift. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26152-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26150-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26152-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)