The PRC claims that its policy for national defense is inherently defensive. However, the scope and scale of what the PLA may be called upon to defend is expanding, motivated by the “fundamental goal” of “resolutely safeguarding China’s “sovereignty, security, and development interests.” This phrasing has replaced, and is tantamount to, earlier assertions of China’s “core interests” (核心利益, hexin liyi). There have been changes and a degree of consistency in the framing of these interests over time.  However, the characterization of the tasks of the Chinese military and objectives of Chinese defense policy have evolved slightly between the 2015 and 2019 NDWPs.  In particular, the PRC’s commitment to safeguarding “national sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and security” is expanding.
“China’s National Defense in the New Era” declares, “The South China Sea islands and Diaoyu Islands are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory.” Although the militarization of islands in the South China Sea has provoked serious concerns in the region, the PRC’s apparent confidence in its approach appears to have only increased. In 2015, “China’s Military Strategy” had highlighted the importance of “safeguard[ing] maritime rights,” calling for the PLA to “strike a balance between rights protection and stability maintenance.” By contrast, this 2019 NDWP lacks that emphasis on stability, and instead provides a direct defense of PRC actions: “China exercises its national sovereignty to build infrastructure and deploy necessary defensive capabilities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and to conduct patrols in the waters of Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.” The justification of such measures as defensive reflects the flexible concept of defense that animates China’s strategy of active defense, which involves an offensive approach at the operational level.
Read the full article in The National Interest.
More from CNAS
CommentaryThe U.S.’s China Strategy Needs New Tools
Policymakers maintain an unparalleled capacity to push back using sanctions, export controls and investment restrictions. Trade, however, presents a unique dilemma....
By Jordan Schneider & David Talbot
CommentaryThe Case Against Foreign Policy Solutionism
Not all problems can actually be solved—and many of today’s foremost foreign policy challenges fall squarely into that category....
By Richard Fontaine
PodcastRichard Fontaine on CNAS and US-China
Richard Fontaine is interviewed by CNAS adjunct Jordan Schneider about Biden and Asia and how the new president's foreign policy team will prioritize what they want to get out...
By Richard Fontaine & Jordan Schneider
CommentaryA Sharper Approach to China’s Military-Civil Fusion Strategy Begins by Dispelling Myths
First, MCF is not an invention of Xi Jinping....
By Elsa B. Kania & Lorand Laskai