China’s air defense zone: The shape of things to come?

By James Steinberg and Michael E. O'Hanlon
December 16, 2013

China’s announcement of an air defense identification zone (AIDZ) that covers substantial portions of the East China Sea has unleashed a storm of concern among China’s neighbors — as well as in the United States.

For China’s action reflects the deeper challenge now posed by its growing military capability and international activism. Vice President Joe Biden was on solid ground when he objected strenuously to this new air defense zone during his recent trip to the region.

Washington and Beijing each insists it wants to build a “new kind of major power relationship.” If they are to succeed, however, and enhance peace and stability across the region, they must develop new strategies to manage their growing tensions.

China defended its new defense zone by asserting that its actions are consistent with international law. Beijing’s arguments are unconvincing, however, because they don’t address the reasons why this particular air defense zone is so troubling.

In contrast with the usual defense zone — which helps build stability by reducing the chances of accidents based on mistaken identity — the unilateral and assertive nature of the new Chinese effort increases the risk of conflict.

Consider the underlying justification for an air defense zone and why it is an accepted practice. Under international law, a country’s sovereignty in airspace derives from its sovereignty over the territorial rights underneath. All airspace outside these boundaries is part of the global commons.

But this presents a dilemma. If countries cannot act against a potential threat from the air until it approaches within 12 miles of shore, the time to act is short. If there is ambiguity about an incoming aircraft’s intentions, there will be pressure to shoot first and ask questions later.

When tensions are high — particularly in this age of terrorism from the sky — the pressure to act increases. Even when the nature of the threat is unknown.

Enter the ADIZ. By pushing the boundary to identify aircraft headed for territorial space, there is more time to resolve ambiguities and avoid engagement of benign aircraft. A nation would have stronger justification for taking action against an unknown aircraft entering sovereign airspace if that aircraft failed to identify itself.

For an aircraft crossing the air defense zone, but not approaching territorial airspace, the failure to identify would be inconsequential since there would be no basis for taking action against it. So, by expanding the decision-making time and reducing the risk of mistake, ADIZs can increase stability consistent with a nation’s legitimate right of self-defense.

So shouldn’t we welcome China’s decision? No. Because China has not demonstrated that its goal is benign.

There are simple steps that Beijing could have taken to reassure its neighbors and the international community. First, China could have consulted with others before imposing the ADIZ and explained its rationale.

Second, China could have made clear how it intends to implement the zone. Beijing could have explained, for example, that the zone’s geographic scope was focused on approaches to the mainland, that China was not asserting sovereignty in ADIZ, that it was not claiming the right to engage non-compliant aircraft in international airspace, and that any patrols in the ADIZ would be unarmed to monitor (and if necessary, cue territorial air defense assets) if an unidentified aircraft entered China’s airspace.

By failing to provide reassurance, China has given other nations justification to draw less benign conclusions. They could view this as the latest chapter in Beijing’s attempt to unilaterally alter the status quo in connection with its local territorial disputes. In doing so, China has prompted its neighbors to respond in ways that heighten the risk of conflict, such as instructing civilian aircraft not to comply.

Because China offered no reassurance, the United States acted appropriately in demonstrating a resolve not to acquiesce in this destabilizing action.  Washington must, however, provide its own reassurance. It should communicate in advance U.S. intent to exercise its rights for legitimate military transits — in ways that cannot be construed as a threat to China.

Washington, for example, could communicate the general nature of air transit, though not necessarily the specific flight plan. Such transparency would vindicate U.S. rights, while reducing the risk of accidents or destabilizing action-reaction cycles. It would be better to use fighters or long-range patrol aircraft to assert this principle, rather than long-range bombers like the B-52 — which could be viewed as an implicit threat to China’s territorial rights.

Even as we push back against Beijing’s decision, Washington should consider other measures to provide appropriate reassurance about each side’s intentions.

The United States and China could, for example, adopt an Open Skies regimen, modeled on the U.S.-Russian experience, flying unarmed and pre-approved reconnaissance sorties as a way of building trust.

Without such proactive thinking about how to relieve growing tensions from China’s ascendance in international power and stature, we are likely to confront many more crises like this — or worse — in the years and decades ahead.

 

PHOTO (TOP): U.S. Navy FA-18 Hornets park on the flight deck of the USS George Washington during the Annual Exercise 2013, at sea November 28, 2013. While the Navy would not confirm the exact coordinates, they said the event took place, at one point at least, in the general vicinity, though not within, the China’s new airspace defense zone China. REUTERS/Kyodo

PHOTO (INSERT): A Chinese military plane Y-8 airborne early warning plane flies through airspace between Okinawa prefecture’s main island and the smaller Miyako island in southern Japan, over the Pacific, in this handout photo taken on October 27, 2013. REUTERS/Joint Staff Office of the Defense Ministry of Japan/Handout via Reuters

834 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I am continuously invstigating online for posts that can benefit me. Thank you!

Wow! This can be one particular of the most helpful blogs We have ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Great. I am also an expert in this topic therefore I can understand your hard work.

I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be a lot more useful than ever before.

I am not sure where you’re getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for great information I was looking for this info for my mission.

I must thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this site. I really hope to see the same high-grade blog posts from you later on as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own blog now ;)|

We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You’ve done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.

Hey! I know this is kinda off topic but I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa? My website discusses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other. If you happen to be interested feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Superb blog by the way!|

I do accept as true with all of the ideas you have introduced to your post. They are very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for newbies. May you please prolong them a bit from next time? Thank you for the post.

Hello, I enjoy reading through your post. I wanted to write a little comment to support you.|

This is a appropriate weblog for would like to discover out about this topic. You realize a whole lot its almost challenging to argue along (not that I personally would want…HaHa). You actually put the latest spin with a topic thats been discussed for a long time. Fantastic stuff, just fantastic!

Thank you for one more informative site. Exactly where else might I get that kind of info written in such a perfect approach? I’ve a challenge that I’m just now operating on, and I’ve been on the glance out for such data.

Excellent post. I definitely love this website. Continue the good work!

There is certainly a great deal to learn about this issue. I like all of the points you have made.

I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an impatience over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this hike.|