“The path to lasting peace and stability in these contested regions lies not in the wielding of crude weapons but in the steadfast pursuit of diplomacy”
IN A high-stakes game of geopolitical brinkmanship, China’s choice to wield axes, knives, and engage in “jostling” rather than conventional, high-tech weaponry in its territorial disputes is both a deliberate and dangerous tactic.
This week, the South China Sea became the latest theater for this peculiar strategy, with Chinese Coast Guard members reportedly using pickaxes and knives against Philippine naval forces.
The choice of these rudimentary tools over firearms is revealing—and alarming.
The use of simple weapons is not new for China.
In fact, it mirrors past confrontations along the Sino-Indian border, where similar methods were employed.
The logic behind this tactic, as noted by experts, is to manage the risk of escalation.
By avoiding the use of firearms, China ostensibly reduces the likelihood of triggering a full-scale war, particularly one that could invoke international defense treaties.
Yet, this approach is fraught with peril.
At the core, China’s reliance on non-lethal yet provocative tools appears to serve multiple objectives.
Firstly, it blurs the lines of engagement, creating ambiguity that complicates the application of defense treaties like the 1951 mutual defense agreement between the United States and the Philippines.
As Daniel Mattingly from Yale University points out, this ambiguity makes it harder for the US to justify intervention, thus giving China more room to maneuver without crossing a clear red line.
Secondly, this tactic seeks to avoid drawing the intense scrutiny and condemnation that would inevitably follow the use of more conventional, deadly force.
The sight of axes and knives, while still menacing, does not carry the same immediate connotation of war as gunfire or missile strikes.
This nuance allows China to exert pressure and assert control while maintaining a veneer of restraint.
However, the use of such methods is a double-edged sword.
While they may reduce the immediate risk of large-scale conflict, they also introduce a volatile element of unpredictability.
In the heat of these confrontations, the potential for miscalculation is immense.
A single incident—such as a sailor losing a finger, or worse, an unintended fatality—could rapidly spiral out of control, igniting the very conflict these tactics aim to avoid.
The deaths of 20 Indian soldiers and several Chinese soldiers in the Galwan Valley in 2020 are a grim testament to this risk.
Moreover, these encounters, though intended to be controlled shows of force, often teeter on the brink of escalation.
Each act of “jostling” or wielding of crude weapons is a step closer to breaking the fragile guardrails that currently prevent outright warfare.
The shooting incident in 2020 along the India-China border is a stark reminder of how quickly these “weak guardrails” can collapse, leading to a breakdown of even the minimal agreements that currently hold.
In light of these tensions, the call for diplomacy and adherence to international law becomes even more urgent.
The international community, particularly key players like the United States, must push for a de-escalation and a return to diplomatic negotiations.
Clearer, more robust agreements that address the specifics of these non-conventional confrontations are needed.
Both China and its neighbors must commit to mechanisms that prevent these dangerous encounters from happening in the first place.
To this end, multilateral forums such as ASEAN, the United Nations, and other regional security dialogues should prioritize the establishment of conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms tailored to these unique and modern forms of conflict.
The focus should be on building trust, enhancing communication channels to prevent miscalculations, and creating binding agreements that specifically address the use of non-conventional weapons.
Furthermore, transparency and accountability must be strengthened.
Independent investigations into these incidents, coupled with public reporting, can help ensure that provocations are clearly documented and addressed in international forums.
This will help curb the temptation for any party to exploit ambiguity for strategic gain.
Ultimately, while the use of axes and knives may seem a restrained alternative to modern weaponry, it is a dangerous gamble that risks igniting the very conflicts it seeks to avoid.
The path to lasting peace and stability in these contested regions lies not in the wielding of crude weapons but in the steadfast pursuit of diplomacy, the rule of law, and mutual respect for sovereignty.
The international community must act now, with firmness and clarity, to steer these simmering tensions away from the brink and towards a sustainable resolution.
