news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

Ding Duo

The "gray zone" strategy is a common term used by some U.S. officials and academics in recent years to smear and attack China's South China Sea policies and actions. They use it to slander China for using non-military means that are different from traditional methods to "change the status quo" or "create tension." In the context of this South China Sea narrative, it is China that uses the "gray zone" strategy, and it is the United States and its ally the Philippines that have to take countermeasures. This is such an obvious reversal of black and white. China's normal behavior in safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea has been maliciously described by the United States and the Philippines as a "gray zone" strategy. China's efforts to control maritime frictions and deal with South China Sea disputes have been distortedly interpreted as forcing other parties to the dispute to accept China's change in the so-called "South China Sea status quo." This has, to a certain extent, led to the South China Sea issue, which is essentially a dispute over territorial sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction, being given an increasingly strong geopolitical color in the international public opinion field, showing an increasingly obvious pan-security trend.

In fact, attaching various cognitive labels to China on the South China Sea issue is itself a manifestation of the United States' use of the "gray zone" strategy. And it is the United States that is truly familiar with this strategy. As early as the 1950s, in response to the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union at that time, American strategic circles pointed out that the use of the "gray zone" strategy can help the United States achieve the goal of changing the balance of power step by step with minimal risk and without overly stimulating its competitors.