The South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative’s annual report claims the United States has intensified its military operations in the region’s waters. It claimed American forces had conducted eight so-called freedom of navigation operations – in which US vessels sail within 12 nautical miles of land claimed or occupied by China – last year, which was three more than in 2018. The report, which tracks US activity in the South China Sea, also said America had engaged in at least 50 joint and multiple exercises with countries from Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the region.

At least three American amphibious assault ships and two coastguard vessels took part in the military exercises, and eight surveillance ships carried out long-duration missions.

The report came as tensions continue to soar between the US and China over issues from trade to the coronavirus pandemic.

It said: “As the strategic competition between China and the US has continued to intensify in recent years, the comparison of the navies have become evident, particularly in the South China Sea.

“By carrying out freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea and sailing through the Taiwan Strait, the US is making a retaliatory response to China, which is becoming a new trend.

“As China continues to modernise and strengthen its navy and air force, the US will become more concerned and increase its surveillance…against the Chinese military.”

The report concluded: “The risk of confrontation in the sea and in the air will increase.”

Beijing has continued to plot to militarise the South China Sea, bringing the whole region a step closer to conflict.

Warships, coastguard vessels, militia boats and oil rigs in the contested waters have doubled as Malaysia, Vietnam and China jostle for their claim to the sea.

Chinese military aircraft have conducted anti-submarine drills in the contested waters in recent weeks, in response to the USS McCampbell sail through the region.

In mid-March, China conducted joint exercises despite knowing the risk of aggravating other claimant countries.

Beijing has also activated its fishermen militia which have outnumbered fishing boats of other countries in the South China Sea, in a bid to outmanoeuvre them.

These fishermen militia have been closely followed by Chinese coastguard ships as a show of power.

Earlier this month, USS Theodore Roosevelt along with an advanced destroyer made a visit to Danang to mark 25 years of diplomatic relations.

It was the second-ever visit by a US carrier strike group to Vietnam, and was perceived by China as a growing closeness between the US and Vietnam.

The US counter moves and live firing exercises have aggravated China to such an extent that it has been firing lasers on US surveillance aircrafts, while conducting air blasts in the East China Sea.

The US has developed a ten year plan to tackle Chinese ambition in the region, with the aim of making it easier for the Navy to navigate around the island chains.

Marine Corps Combat Development Command plan to axe 12,000 personnel and give up heavy artillery in order to focus on lighter mobility options.

Drones and mobile anti-ship guns are understood to be part of the plans, and are believed to have been designed specifically to combat China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Hostilities between the two world superpowers are particularly risky near the Spratly Island chain, home to seven Chinese island bases.

The moving of its aircraft carriers, airstrips and weapons into the region has earned the cluster of bases the nickname: “The Great Wall of Sand.”

A leaked set of photographs given to a Filipino newspaper revealed just how elaborate China’s development of military bases has been.

Some images showed cargo ships and supply vessels, which the newspaper said appeared to be delivering construction materials to the China-controlled islands.

Others show runways, hangars, control towers, helipads and radomes as well as a series of multi-storey buildings that China has built on reefs.

The regional health official in Wuhan City, the epicenter of the pandemic, demanded the destruction of the lab samples, which established the cause of an unexplained viral pneumonia since January 1, 2020. China didn’t acknowledge that there was human-to-human transmission until more than three weeks later.

Caixin Global provides the clearest evidence yet of the scale of this fatal cover-up in the very crucial early weeks, when the opportunity was lost to control the outbreak — a contagion that spread throughout the world thereafter, and has caused a global shutdown, literally.

Warfare Beyond Rules

It is only apposite to go back and trace the many notable military research writings that have advocated for more than two decades that China should prepare itself to wage warfare beyond rules put in place by the Western powers.

In 1996, two Chinese military officers (colonels in the People’s Liberation Air Force (PLAAF), Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, took part in military exercises conducted by China for the purpose of coercing the island nation of Taiwan. This was the period when Taipei was getting ready for its presidential elections. Soon enough, East Asia witnessed the return of great power rivalry to the region when the United States dispatched two aircraft carrier groups to the area.

This became the backdrop in which these two colonels met in a small town in southeastern China’s Fujian province and began their research. The end product was a co-authored book, Chao Xian Zhan: Dui Quanqiu Hua Shidai Zhanzheng yu Zhanfa de Xiangding (Warfare Beyond Rules: Judgment of War and Methods of War in the Era of Globalization), published by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Art Press.

The central premise of Warfare Beyond Rules is that China should be prepared to conduct “warfare beyond all boundaries and limitations to defend itself.”

In the book, Qiao and Wang argue that the existing rules of war, international laws, and agreements were developed by the Western powers, and that the United States leads the race in new-age military technologies and weapon platforms. Writing more than two decades ago, Qiao and Wang stated that, because of higher costs, cutting-edge weapons’ platforms could trigger a national economic collapse.

A Revolution in Warfare By All Means

The book — termed Unrestricted Warfare in the English translated version — went on to state that geographical security is an outdated concept. Threats to national security may not come from cross-border invasion, but from non-military actions. Qiao and Wang articulated that definitions of security must include geographical, political, economic, resource, religious, cultural, data, environmental, and near-earth space security.

While commenting on the bans on chemical, biological weapons, and landmines, the authors argued that for a country to accept rules which regulate war depends on whether the laws and rules are favorable to its own national interests. They contended that powerful nations use the rules to control others, for instance “by banning chemical and biological weapons.”

The essence drawn out from these arguments is that China should freely decide and opt for the means of warfighting by disregarding agreements and codes of conduct developed over the past decades by the West. Basically, in theory, the book Warfare Beyond Rules highlights thinking out of the box.

Most significantly, with an aim to target the adversary’s vulnerable targets in unexpected ways, Warfare Beyond Rules underlined the concepts of “asymmetric warfare.” This included guerrilla war, terrorist actions, and cyber-attacks against data networks.

Qiao and Wang called for a “revolution in war,” which combines conventional with non-war actions, and military with non-military actions. In an alarming opinion, they stated that war may include a blend of stealth planes and cruise missiles, along with biochemical, financial, and terrorist attacks.

War for Biological Dominance

More than a decade later, a 2010 publication titled War for Biological Dominance (制生权战争) emphasized the impact of biology on future warfare.

The book, published by Xinhua Publishing House in October 2010, was authored by Guo Jiwei (郭继卫), a professor and chief physician at the Third Military Medical University, Army University. The book highlighted the decline of traditional military thinking and focused upon emerging trends in military thinking, the invisible battlefield, and unexpected changes.

Subsequently, in 2015, then-president of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences He Fuchu (贺福初) argued in an essay that biotechnology would assume the shape of a new strategic commanding height in national defense. These will range from biomaterials to “brain control” weapons.

He Fuchu went on to become the vice president of the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences the highest-level research institute of the PLA, headquartered in Beijing.

Chinese writings over the past two decades have amplified that cross integration of biotechnology, engineering, and information technology will become the new strategic doctrine for future military revolutions, as cited in the October 2015 edition of the Liberation Army Daily. These writings consistently put forth that weaponization of living organisms shall become a reality in the future, with non-traditional combat styles taking center stage.

Biology Among the 7 New Domains of Warfare

Foremost among the new-age defense high frontiers will be the biological frontier. Biodiversity and technology innovation will redefine biological military revolution. Since 2016, China’s Central Military Commission has been funding projects on military brain science, advanced bio-mimetic systems (that mimic biological systems), biological and biomimetic materials, and new-age biotechnology.

Further and more significantly, biology has been demarcated as “one of the seven new domains of warfare” in a 2017 book titled New Highland of War (National Defense University Press) authored by Zhang Shibo. Zhang is a retired general and former president of China’s National Defense University. In the book, Zhang argues that modern biotechnological development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability, including the possibility of employing “specific ethnic genetic attacks”.

More recently, the 2017 edition of Science of Military Strategy an authoritative textbook published by the PLA’s National Defense University — has introduced a new section on “biology as a domain of military struggle.” This section discusses new potential kinds of biological warfare, including “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”

Contemporary advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering hold worrying implications for military affairs. The Chinese military’s interest in these gets reflected through its strategic writings and research, which consistently have argued that advances in biology are contributing to changing the form or character (形态) of conflict.

China’s 13th Five-Year Plan

China’s national strategy of military-civil fusion (军民融合) has highlighted biology as a priority. As a result, as per the September 2017 Thirteenth Five-Year Special Plan for Military-Civilian Integration Development, the Party Central Committee, the State Council, and the Central Military Commission have put in motion the full implementation of the development strategy of military-civilian integration in the field of science and technology. This was done in accordance with the 13th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China.

Among the key tasks of this 2017 plan are the implementation of key technology-military-civilian integration projects.

In accordance with the requirements of the key national research and development (R&D) plan for the design of the entire chain and implementation of integrated organizations, a number of deployments have been made. These include the fields of biology, among others, with dual-use features to accelerate the formation of new productivity and combat effectiveness in scientific and technological achievements.

The plan also aims to strengthen the capability of military and civilian science and technology collaborative innovation and coordinate the layout of basic research and cutting-edge technology research. Accordingly, a special fund for basic research military-civilian integration has been set up to focus on supporting basic national defense research projects and promote the transformation of the results of basic civil research into military applications — more specifically, in the fields of biological crossover and disruptive technologies.

Study of the Chinese military’s interest in biology as an emerging domain of warfare becomes increasingly relevant in the current COVID-19 context, particularly when viewed against the two-decade-old backdrop of emphasis on biological frontiers of warfare put forth by Chinese military thinkers.

It is well-established that Chinese military strategists have been arguing about potential “genetic weapons” and the possibility of a “bloodless victory.” The task becomes all the more challenging, owing to the lack of transparency and uncertainty of ethics in China’s research activities.

Thus, the research writings cited above defend China’s move, if it were to come to that, of not hesitating to use as many means of warfare as possible. Clearly, those include weapons that are “not permitted by international law and the rules of war,” such as chemical and biological weapons.

The dangerous recommendations of most of these writings raise alarm bells about China’s future commitment on banning chemical and biological weapons.

The Chinese outlet appeared to refer specifically to the USS Roosevelt aircraft carriers strike group’s recent passage through the South China Sea.

“This is the third time in just a week US warships are known to have trespassed into the South China Sea,” the Chinese outlet wrote, referring to the Roosevelt carrier group’s passage and other U.S. Navy activity in the disputed waters.

The outlet also published comments from People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Southern Theater Command spokesperson Li Huamin in which he said the U.S. has been using “freedom of navigation” exercises as an excuse to violate Chinese sovereignty over the disputed waters.

EMP weapons are envisioned as a way to emit electromagnetic pulses that may be able to temporarily jam electronic devices. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have all reportedly worked to develop weapons; however, the most viable current option for carrying out an EMP attack involves detonating a nuclear weapon.

Chinese military expert Song Zhongping suggested a low-energy laser might also be a viable method of delivering an EMP attack. Song said firing conventional weapons at U.S. warships is not a good choice, but that electromagnetic weapons could be viable for disabling warships and forcing the U.S. to withdraw from contested regions.

Song suggested an EMP attack would not cause casualties or be seen as a “visible conflict” but would deliver a “strong warning” to the U.S.

Song’s rhetoric comes a month after an incident in the South China Sea in which a Chinese destroyer aimed a laser at a U.S. maritime patrol aircraft. Song suggested the Chinese military was not the aggressor in that incident but said using lasers on U.S. targets, as in that case, “is a good example and could be applied more.”

The concept of using EMP attacks to force the U.S. to withdraw from the South China Sea would appear to fall in line with China’s “anti-access area denial” military strategy. The anti-access area denial strategy appears aimed at quickly overcoming U.S. forces in the disputed region and employing methods that would hinder U.S. forces from returning to the region.

The Chinese government has been increasingly moving anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile systems as well as radar jamming equipment onto islands throughout the South China Sea to achieve this area denial strategy. The Chinese military has also used artificial islands to act as runways for bombers.

U.S. Navy Adm. John C. Aquilino assessed in December that China is showing no signs of slowing down its military buildup within the South China Sea.

Here are some of the most powerful weapons China has sold or licensed to Pakistan.

The acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1990s is considered to be one of the largest failings of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. But, it is widely said that China provided significant assistance to the Pakistani nuclear weapons program (in addition to the A.Q. Khan’s espionage).

China is alleged to have provided missile components, warhead designs, and even highly-enriched uranium. The political motive behind this is clear, Pakistan acts as an effective foil against growing Indian regional ambitions. But it is clear that nuclear assistance is the most deadly example of Chinese/Pakistani defense cooperation.

2. JF-17 Fighter

The JF-17 fighter is the new premier multirole fighter of the Pakistan Air Force, supplanting the position previously held by American F-16Cs. Featuring integration with a wide variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, including active radar air-to-air missiles and air-launched cruise missiles, the JF-17, while a “budget” aircraft brings a lot of modern capability and modern ergonomics for its cost.

While it would probably lose a dogfight to Indian Su-30MKIs due to inferior thrust-to-weight ratio and turn rate, in the beyond visual range arena, the JF-17 could prove to be tough opponent, especially given the Indian aircraft are said to have issues locking on at range with their first-generation R-77 missiles.

3. A-100 Multiple Rocket Launcher

Multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) are some of the deadliest artillery systems on the battlefield. Combat experience in the Donbass has proven that MRLs can wipe out entire units if they remain static and unprepared. The A-100 is one of the latest MRL systems, reaching operational capability around 2,000.

The first units were sold to Pakistan by China around 2008, since then Pakistan has built facilities to indigenously produce rockets for the system. Long-range MRLs are fielded by both India and Pakistan, with Indians fielding the Soviet/Russian BM-30 Smerch MRL.

Rocket artillery could incur massive casualties in rear areas in the opening stages of a conventional conflict, as such both MRL systems are considered to be key parts of conventional deterrence strategies for India and Pakistan.

4. VT-1A

The VT-1A, alternatively known as the Al-Khalid or MBT-2000 is one of the more capable tanks in the region. Designed as a joint project between Pakistan and China, the design was practically clean slate. Production tanks have thermal gunner’s sights, a panoramic commander’s sight, and a 125mm gun.

While not up to the standard of modern Russian or Western tanks, the VT-1A is more than capable of combating the T-72Ms that form the bulk of the Indian tank forces.

However, the more advanced T-90S may pose issues to the VT-1A. However, Pakistan is considering acquiring the VT-4, China’s further development of the VT-1A design.

5. HQ-16

While the Pakistani military has long relied on the Pakistan Air Force for air defense, the Pakistan Army has acquired the Chinese HQ-16 medium-range surface to air missile (SAM) for the defense of its formations on the ground.

A deep modernization of the Russian Buk SAM, the HQ-16 utilizes vertical launch and containerized missiles to enhance reaction times. HQ-16 batteries are also said to be highly mobile, allowing them to avoid artillery and SEAD/DEAD attacks. Pakistan is also in negotiations to buy the longer ranged Chinese HQ-9 system, a Chinese analog to the Russian S-300 long-range SAM.

Three members of China’s People’s Liberation Army have been indicted by the Justice Department in the 2017 data breach of Atlanta-based Equifax Inc., one of the nation’s largest credit reporting agencies.

The charges include conspiracy to commit computer fraud, economic espionage, and wire fraud.

This was a data breach—a “release of personally sensitive, protected, and/or confidential data”—rather than a security breach, which refers only to the hacking of websites and applications without theft.

And it was a large one, with the names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers of 145 million Americans.

These are not ordinary criminal hackers with a motive to sign up for credit cards using another person’s name. The accused are members of a foreign military branch—the People’s Liberation Army’s 54th Research Institute, which falls under the scrutiny of the Chinese army’s Strategic Support Force.

The Strategic Support Force works on information operations, such as cyberspying, to conduct a form of hybrid warfare that uses diverse elements such as propaganda, economics, and cyberattacks against its adversaries.

The Equifax hack provides the unit with personal financial information that can help the Chinese recruit spies within our national security sector, as well as influence key business and media figures.

Financial information can help intelligence operatives identify those who are susceptible to bribery or other economic pressure, such as former CIA officer Kevin Patrick Mallory, who provided secrets to the Chinese in exchange for money to pay off his mortgage and other debts.

The Chinese have used human intelligence—targets include military forces, defense industrial companies, national security decision-makers, and critical infrastructure entities—to undermine the U.S. strategically and economically.

The Equifax breach could have implications beyond identity theft. The information could be used to target individuals for espionage, bribe, or blackmail.

U.S. national security matters are at stake here. Both the U.S. government and private businesses must take stronger security measures against these acts of theft and espionage.

The laser was not visible to the naked eye and was detected by the Poseidon’s sensors. The P-8A, assigned to Patrol Squadron (VP) 45 and based at NAS Jacksonville (Florida), is currently deployed in the US 7th Fleet area of operations and operates from Kadena Air Base (Japan). No damage or injuries to the Poseidon and its crew were reported.

The US Navy deemed the destroyer’s actions unsafe and unprofessional, adding also that this incident violated the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), a multilateral agreement reached at the 2014 Western Pacific Naval Symposium to reduce the chance of an incident at sea, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between US Department of Defense and the Ministry of National Defense of the PRC regarding rules of behavior for safety of air and maritime encounters.

The official statement didn’t provide much details about the laser, other than noting it was weapons-grade and not visible to the naked eye. However, it is worth noting that the Chinese military is developing multiple laser systems for various applications.

In particular, the PLA Navy was testing last year the prototype of a tactical laser system intended for land applications and for use aboard the new Type 55 destroyers for both for air defense and close-in defense, as alternative to the HHQ-10 surface-to-air missile. China didn’t release details about the system, other than showcasing it on the national TV channel. However, the system bears some resemblance to the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System or XN-1 LaWS, developed by the US Navy and tested in 2014 aboard the USS Ponce.

The LaWS is designed to work against low-end asymmetric threats with scalable power levels up to 30 kW. While working at low power, the laser can act as an Active Denial System (ADS), a non-lethal system for area denial, perimeter security and crowd control, while in high-power mode it can be used to disable sensors and engines and also detonate explosive materials.

During testing, the laser was directed by the Phalanx CIWS (Close-in Weapon System) Fire Control Radar and successfully hit targets mounted aboard a speeding small boat, a Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and other moving targets at sea.

Similar incidents happened also in the last two years; however, this is the first time the incident is directly attributable to the Chinese military.

Back in 2018, a US C-130 Hercules was targeted by a visible laser while the aircraft was flying near China’s Djibouti base, resulting in minor injuries to two pilots. In 2019, Australian Navy helicopter pilots flying from the HMAS Canberra were hit by lasers in the South China Sea during a cruise from Vietnam to Singapore, requiring them to perform a precautionary landing.

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, US Defence Secretary Mark Esper condemned China for undermining international laws and violating the sovereignty of smaller states.

“Today, the international rules-based order that America and its allies have worked hard to establish is being tested … China first and Russia second are now the department’s top priorities,” Esper said.

“Both nations are rapidly modernising their armed forces and expanding their capabilities into the space and cyber domains, emboldened by the growing strength of their militaries. Beijing and Moscow are not only violating the sovereignty of smaller states, they are also attempting to undermine international laws and norms that advantage themselves,” Esper said.

In 2017, laying out ambitious plans for the People’s Liberation Army, Chinese President Xi Jinping said that the PLA must modernise by 2035 and become a top-ranked military by 2050.

Beijing has also invoked its “nine-dash line” claim to what it says are its historic rights in the South China Sea, and has built artificial islands, reclaimed land and installed airstrips and military equipment in the waters. It is involved in acrimonious disputes with several Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines and Vietnam, over the territory.

“China’s brazen efforts to coerce smaller states and assert illegitimate maritime claims threaten its neighbours’ sovereignty, undermine the stability of regional markets and increase the risk of poverty,” Esper said, reinforcing that what the US calls the Indo-Pacific region remains to be the US’ priority theatre.

Esper also said China is not obeying the existing norms in the South China Sea, thus breaking the regional status quo.

The US has been implementing an Indo-Pacific strategy, a combination of military and geoeconomic policies in the hopes of containing China’s military expansion in the Pacific and the Indian oceans. Its other objective is to curb Beijing’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative by providing alternative development models to economies in the region.

Esper said that China’s “behaviour stands in stark contrast to the United States vision, one that respects and provides an opportunity for all nations, large and small.

“Our approach continues to prove itself superior to China’s, as evidenced by our growing partnerships across the Indo-Pacific.”

Esper’s concerns about Beijing’s growing influence reflected those raised in the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress, released in May, on China’s military power and development.

“Over the coming decades, [Chinese leaders] are focused on realising a powerful and prosperous China that is equipped with a ‘world-class’ military, securing China’s status as a great power with the aim of emerging as the pre-eminent power in the Indo-Pacific region,” the report found.

Esper added that the US would contain China – and re-ensure the existing international rules and orders – by further strengthening relations with its traditional allies.

“The United States network of alliances and partnerships provides us an asymmetric strategic edge that our adversaries cannot match … not only because of our superior military capabilities and equipment, but also because of our values.”

“We offer something our competitors do not respect for sovereignty and independence of all nations, adherence to international law and norms, and the promotion of individual liberty and human rights.”

The US Congress has recently passed bills to safeguard the human rights of people in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, despite Beijing’s heavy protests.

Esper said he had visited the Indo-Pacific twice since becoming defence secretary in July. “Throughout my discussions with my counterparts. I’m reminded just how much nations in that region desire American presence and leadership.

“They look to us to deter aggression, to ensure a free and open access to the vocal comments and uphold long-standing international rules and norms,” Esper said.

“We have entered a new era of great-power competition.”

While Esper spoke, Washington and Beijing confirmed on Friday they had reached a “phase-one” deal in their 17-month trade war. Wang Shouwen, China’s vice-minister of commerce, called the deal a breakthrough, with an agreement that would halt further tariff increases by the US and lower some others already in place.

Despite the news on the trade front, though, John Sitilides, geopolitical strategist at Trilogy Advisors in Washington, said that the US-China rivalry was here to stay.

“Parallel to this provisional deal, the US and China will remain engaged in a global power competition in which their geopolitical rivalry in Asia and worldwide will ensure that the mutual political, economic and technological mistrust of the past several years will only intensify in the decade ahead,” Sitilides said.

Sean King, a senior vice-president at the political consulting firm Park Strategies, noted that Friday’s “minimalist” trade deal announcement did not result in Esper seeing a need to “ease up” his narrative.

King, however, also said that Washington must treat its allies better if it wishes to realise its objectives of containing China.

“The US shouldn’t be haranguing allies South Korea and Japan over defence costs,” he said. “Rather, we should be drawing in our friends and allies even closer at times like these – not pushing them away.”

Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Ren Guoqiang said the China’s People’s Liberation Army troop “rotation” in Hong Kong was a “routine arrangement.” China has stationed troops in Hong Kong since it was turned over to the Chinese in 1997 from Great Britain.

The spokesman said the timing of this year’s rotation was “similar to previous rotations” and “was decided based on the order of the Central Military Commission and the defense needs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.” He dodged a question about whether the number of troops and the amount of equipment have increased since the latest rotation.

The People’s Liberation Army troop movements were carried out in the dead of the night and took place at the same time as a rotation of the garrison in neighboring Macao. They were announced by Chinese state media early Thursday morning.

While the rotation occurred at almost exactly the same time as last year, any PLA movements are tightly scrutinized for suggestions the military could be deployed to Hong Kong’s streets to tackle the ongoing unrest.

US military officials are concerned about the new movements and for now are treating the Chinese claim that they are part of a routine annual rotation with extreme skepticism, according to two US defense officials.

“This is the time to start worrying,” one official said. The specific concern in the next few days is that the Chinese troop movements, including tactical vehicles and personnel carriers, puts Beijing’s forces into a more immediate position to crack down on a pro-democracy rally that had been planned for Saturday, but has already been banned.

The same official added that if the troop movements were really just part of a planned rotation, China might have delayed it until after the sensitivities of Saturday.

“We are monitoring the Chinese military movements in and around Hong Kong closely,” Pentagon Lt. Col. David Eastburn said in a statement. “We stand with the G7 countries in calling for violence to be avoided and in reaffirming the importance of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

The US is watching very carefully for what might happen next. Officials acknowledge that if China begins to control or limit communications out of Hong Kong, it could leave the Trump administration with a delayed understanding of what is happening.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that “it is clear that China is engaging in — in a deliberate strategy to undermine the stability of the region. It is clear the values and behaviors of the Chinese Communist Party do not align with the vast majority of states.”

The troop movements also came as Chief Executive Carrie Lam would not rule out using emergency powers — which would give her the right to pass new laws without the approval of legislators — if violent protests continue.

Police denied permission for the major Saturday protest, which had been planned by the Civil Human Rights Front. The CHRF previously organized three peaceful marches that it said attracted more than a million participants. Organizers said they are appealing the police decision.

While fears about a military crackdown have often focused on visions of PLA tanks crossing the border, the military has had a major presence in Hong Kong since the city was handed over from British to Chinese control in 1997.

The 6,000-strong garrison largely avoids public view, however, aside from displays to mark key anniversaries or the visits of Chinese officials, such as when President Xi Jinping inspected troops in 2017 to mark 20 years of rule from Beijing.

Under the city’s constitution, the Hong Kong government can request the assistance of the garrison “in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief.”

Administration and police officials have repeatedly denied any need to call on the military, even as the protests have taken an increasingly violent turn.

This has not stopped the rampant concern that at some point Beijing could crack down, a concern that has been boosted by a large buildup of paramilitary forces across the border in Shenzhen.

While most analysts agree that the presence in the Chinese city of the People’s Armed Police, a force under the military commission, is likely intended to send a message to domestic audiences that the government is in control and will not allow unrest to spill over the border, it has caused concern among many in Hong Kong.

Lam’s apparent suggestion that she could invoke emergency powers has deepened that concern. Police resources have been stretched by the months-long protests, and were the government to institute a curfew or other radical action that such a move would allow, it’s likely they would require reinforcement, potentially from the military.

If anything will stay the government’s hand in sending in troops, it is the effect it will likely have on the city’s finances. Any echo of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, in which troops were deployed to clear pro-democracy protesters from the center of Beijing, could send Hong Kong’s stock market crashing and foreign business fleeing, potentially dooming an already suffering economy.

The busy waterway is one of a growing number of flashpoints in the U.S.-China relationship, which also include a trade war, U.S. sanctions and Taiwan.

President Donald Trump dramatically increased pressure on China to reach a trade deal by threatening to hike U.S. tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods this week and soon target hundreds of billions more.

The U.S. guided-missile destroyers Preble and Chung Hoon traveled within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson Reefs in the Spratly Islands, a U.S. military spokesman told Reuters.

Commander Clay Doss, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet, said the “innocent passage” aimed “to challenge excessive maritime claims and preserve access to the waterways as governed by international law”.

The operation was first reported by Reuters.

In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said the U.S. ships entered the waters near the islets without the Chinese government’s permission, and the Chinese navy warned them to leave.

“The relevant moves by the U.S. ships infringed upon Chinese sovereignty, and damaged the peace, security and good order of the relevant seas. China is strongly dissatisfied with this and resolutely opposed to it,” he told a daily news briefing.

“China urges the United States to stop such provocative actions,” Geng said, adding that China would continue to take the necessary steps to defend its sovereignty and security.

The U.S. military has a long-standing position that its operations are carried out throughout the world, including areas claimed by allies, and that they are separate from political considerations.

The operation was the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing’s efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters, where Chinese, Japanese and some Southeast Asian navies operate.

China claims almost all of the strategic South China Sea and frequently lambasts the United States and its allies over naval operations near Chinese-occupied islands.

Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing claims in the region.

China and the United States have repeatedly traded barbs in the past over what Washington says is Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea by building military installations on artificial islands and reefs.

China defends its construction as necessary for self-defense and says the United States is responsible for ratcheting up tension in the region by sending warships and military planes close to islands Beijing claims.

Last month, China’s navy chief said freedom of navigation should not be used to infringe upon the rights of other nations.

The freedom of navigation operation comes weeks after a major naval parade marking 70 years since the founding of the Chinese navy. The United States sent only a low-level delegation to the Chinese navy anniversary events.