The Silent Conquest: China's Grey Zone Strategy and the Subjugation of the South China Sea

The Facts: Systematic Maritime Coercion

Over the past two decades, Southeast Asia has witnessed a revolutionary—and alarming—transformation in how territorial disputes are conducted. The South China Sea, a region of paramount strategic and economic importance, has become the testing ground for what analysts term “grey zone” strategies. These operations fall deliberately below the threshold of war while systematically altering facts on the ground—or rather, on the water.

China’s approach represents a masterclass in calculated ambiguity. Rather than employing traditional military force, Beijing utilizes its China Coast Guard (CCG) and People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) as the primary instruments of its expansionist ambitions. Since 2013, the presence of these vessels around the Spratly and Paracel Islands has increased dramatically, particularly following China’s accelerated construction of artificial islands. These operations follow a “salami slicing” pattern—small, incremental actions that collectively produce significant strategic advantages.

The tactics employed include dangerous maneuvers against Philippine, Vietnamese, and Malaysian vessels: blocking supply ships, chasing fishing boats, and even directing laser beams to disrupt observations. These actions are carefully calibrated to be aggressive enough to assert control while remaining sufficiently ambiguous to avoid triggering military intervention from the United States or regional allies.

The Strategic Context: Why the South China Sea Matters

The South China Sea represents far more than a collection of disputed islands and reefs. This body of water serves as a vital artery for global commerce, with more than one-third of global maritime trade passing through its waters. Control over these sea lanes translates directly into economic and geopolitical leverage. Additionally, the region is rich in natural resources, including substantial oil and gas reserves that could help meet China’s growing energy needs.

From Beijing’s perspective, the South China Sea represents a crucial theater in its broader ambition to position itself as a major maritime power and reduce American influence in the Indo-Pacific. The grey zone strategy perfectly aligns with these objectives, allowing China to change the status quo without incurring the reputational costs associated with overt military aggression.

The Legal Facade: Weaponizing Narrative and Ambiguity

Perhaps the most sophisticated aspect of China’s strategy lies in its manipulation of legal narratives. Beijing systematically frames every incident as legitimate law enforcement actions to protect its national territory. This approach forms part of China’s “three warfares” strategy—public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare.

The legal ambiguity surrounding grey zone operations makes them particularly difficult to counter. Since these actions don’t involve traditional military forces or overt uses of weapons, they exist in a legal gray area. Coast guards and maritime militias operate outside conventional definitions of armed forces, while modified fishing boats can plausibly be denied as state operations. This strategic ambiguity provides China with maximum flexibility to alter maritime realities while minimizing accountability.

Regional Responses: Fractured and Inadequate

The responses from ASEAN countries reveal both the effectiveness of China’s strategy and the profound power imbalances in the region. The Philippines has emerged as the most vocal opponent, particularly following laser incidents involving their patrol boats. Vietnam has responded by strengthening its naval capabilities, while Malaysia has pursued quieter diplomatic channels. Unfortunately, none of these approaches has proven adequate to counter China’s systematic pressure.

Most ASEAN nations lack the capacity for punishment deterrence, leaving them to rely on denial deterrence—strengthening defensive capabilities rather than imposing costs on Chinese aggression. The United States attempts to provide security guarantees through Freedom of Navigation operations, but these remain reactive rather than preventive measures.

The Imperialist Nature of Grey Zone Warfare

What China is executing in the South China Sea represents nothing less than 21st-century imperialism—a sophisticated form of neo-colonial domination that exploits the very international systems supposedly designed to prevent such behavior. While Western powers lecture the Global South about rules-based orders, they have consistently failed to address the structural inequities that enable powerful nations to dominate weaker ones through legal ambiguity and strategic coercion.

China’s actions demonstrate a profound disrespect for the sovereignty of smaller nations—particularly fellow members of the Global South that should rightfully stand in solidarity against all forms of imperialism. The Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia have every right to pursue their maritime interests without facing calculated pressure from a regional hegemon.

The selective application of international law reveals the hypocrisy of the existing world order. When Western powers violate maritime boundaries, they face minimal consequences, yet they demand strict adherence from emerging powers. This double standard has created an environment where might makes right, and powerful nations can reshape regional realities through carefully calibrated coercion.

The Human Cost of Silent Aggression

Behind the strategic analyses and geopolitical calculations lie real human consequences. Filipino, Vietnamese, and Malaysian fishermen face intimidation and harassment while simply trying to earn their livelihoods. Coastal communities see their traditional fishing grounds increasingly dominated by foreign vessels. The psychological toll of constant, low-level pressure creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that affects millions across Southeast Asia.

This represents a fundamental violation of human dignity—the right of people to live without fear of coercion from external powers. As advocates for humanism and anti-imperialism, we must recognize that grey zone strategies ultimately represent a form of psychological warfare against civilian populations.

Toward a Just Resolution: Reimagining Regional Security

The solution to China’s grey zone strategy cannot simply involve military buildups or reactive diplomacy. ASEAN nations must develop innovative security mechanisms that address the unique challenges of grey zone warfare. This includes coast guard coordination mechanisms, standardized protocols for maritime incidents, enhanced technological surveillance capabilities, and more aggressive international legal diplomacy.

Critically, the Global South must develop its own frameworks for interpreting and applying international law—frameworks that account for historical context, power imbalances, and the legitimate development needs of emerging nations. We cannot simply accept Western interpretations of maritime law that have historically favored colonial powers.

Regional stability requires not just the absence of war, but the presence of justice. This means creating systems where smaller nations can assert their rights without fear of coercion, where international law applies equally to all nations, and where the era of imperial domination—whether Western or Eastern—finally comes to an end.

Conclusion: The Moral Imperative of Resistance

China’s grey zone strategy in the South China Sea represents a dangerous evolution in how powerful nations dominate weaker ones. By operating in the spaces between war and peace, law and lawlessness, Beijing has created a system of coercion that is both effective and difficult to counter.

As committed opponents of imperialism in all its forms, we must stand with the peoples of Southeast Asia in resisting this quiet aggression. The struggle for a multipolar world order cannot simply mean replacing Western hegemony with Eastern hegemony—it must mean creating a world where all nations, regardless of size or power, can determine their own destinies free from coercion and domination.

The nations of the Global South have fought too long and too hard against colonial oppression to accept a new form of domination disguised as strategic competition. Our collective future depends on building international systems that genuinely respect sovereignty, human dignity, and the right of all peoples to pursue their development without fear of silent conquest.