.jpg)
China's salami slicing (Chinese: 蚕食; pinyin: Cán shí; transl. "nibbling like a silkworm"[1]) is a geopolitical strategy involving a series of small steps taken by the government of China adding to a larger gain that would have been difficult or unlawful to perform all at once.[2][3][4] Advocates of the term have cited examples such as the territorial disputes in the South China Sea and along the Sino-Indian border.
According to Indian strategist and writer Brahma Chellaney, "salami slicing" rather than overt aggression is China's favored strategy because none of its series of small actions serves as a casus belli by itself. China slices very thinly, camouflaging offense as defense, and eventually gains a larger strategic advantage. This throws its targets off balance by presenting a Hobson’s choice: either silently suffer or risk an expensive and dangerous war with China. This can also place the blame and burden of starting a war on the targets.[2]
Proponents of the salami slicing strategy allege that China has used this in political, economic, and military realms.
Indian authors accuse China of using piecemeal claims to expand its territory at India's expense. Brahma Chellaney has cited China's incorporation of Aksai Chin in a step-by-step process between 1952 and 1964, its 2020-2021 border skirmishes with India, and Tazikistan's Pamir Mountains as examples.[5][6][2][7] The Five Fingers of Tibet involving Nepal and Bhutan as well as the String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean have also been described as manifestations of China's salami slicing.[8][9]
|
Further information: Regional reactions to China's maritime activities in the South China Sea |
According to Chellaney, China expands its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South China Sea at the expense of other nations EEZ through its nine-dash line claims. It took control of the Paracel Islands in 1974, Johnson Reef in 1988, Mischief Reef in 1995, and Scarborough Shoal in 2012.[2][10] China has installed military infrastructure in these areas and deployed the China Maritime Safety Administration, Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and the State Oceanic Administration, agencies that Chellaney describes as paramilitary in nature.[2]
Retired Indian Brigadier S. K. Chatterji extended salami slicing in reference to China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Confucius Institute, allegations of technology theft, involvement in the World Health Organization, activities in Hong Kong and Tibet, and diplomatic support for North Korea and Pakistan.[11]
Some critics have claimed that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has pushed Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia and other nations have forced these countries, unable to pay their debts, to handover their infrastructure and resources to China.[12] According to Chellaney, this is "clearly part of China's geostrategic vision".[13] China's overseas development policy has been called debt-trap diplomacy because once indebted economies fail to service their loans, they are said to be pressured to support China's geostrategic interests.[14][15] However, other analysts such as the Lowy Institute argue that the BRI is not the main cause of failed projects,[16] while the Rhodium Group found that "asset seizures are a very rare occurrence", while debt write-off is the most common outcome.[17]
Some governments have accused the Belt and Road Initiative of being "neocolonial" due to what they allege is China's practice of debt trap diplomacy to fund the initiative's infrastructure projects in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.[18] China contends that the initiative has provided markets for commodities, improved prices of resources and thereby reduced inequalities in exchange, improved infrastructure, created employment, stimulated industrialization, and expanded technology transfer, thereby benefiting host countries.[19]
China is accused by critics of the theft of "cutting-edge technology from global leaders in diverse fields", including U.S. military technology, classified information, and trade secrets of American companies.[20][21][22] It uses lawful as well as covert methods, leveraging a network of existing scientific, academic and business contacts such as the Thousand Talents Plan.[23]
The German Federal Ministry of the Interior estimates that Chinese economic espionage could be costing Germany between 20 and 50 billion euros annually. Spies are reportedly targeting mid- and small-scale companies that do not have as strong security regimens as larger corporations.[24]
|
See also: Chinese information operations and information warfare and Chinese intelligence activity abroad |
China is accused of nominating persons to various organizations with the view of influencing the organizational culture and values to the advantage of China's national interests. Examples cited include the promotion of Chinese officials to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which critics have claimed advances Chinese national interests.[25] The Confucius Institutes have also been claimed to advance Chinese state interests.[26] China is alleged to have attempted foreign electoral intervention in the domestic political elections of other nations, including in the United States, although these claims have not been supported by evidence.,[27][28][29][30][31] China has been accused of interference in elections on Taiwan,[32][33][34] and has been accused of influencing Australian members of Parliament.[35][36][37]
Relations between China and Australia deteriorated after 2018 due to growing concerns of Chinese political influence in various sectors of Australian society including in the Government, universities and media as well as China's stance on the South China Sea dispute.[38][39] Consequently, Australian Coalition Government announced plans to ban foreign donations to Australian political parties and activist groups.[40] Australia has empowered the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Attorney-General’s Department to target the China-linked entities and people under new legislation to combat Chinese influence operations, including the alleged deployment of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[citation needed]
The United Work Front department is accused of lobbying policy makers outside of China to enact pro-CCP policies,[41] targeting people or entities that are outside the CCP, especially in the overseas Chinese community, who hold social, commercial, or academic influence, or who represent interest groups.[42][43] Through its efforts, the UFWD seeks to ensure that these individuals and groups are supportive of or useful to CCP interests and potential critics remain divided.[44][45][46]
In 2005, a pair of Chinese dissidents claimed that China may have up to 1,000 intelligence agents in Canada.[47][48] The head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Richard Fadden in a television interview implied that various Canadian politicians at provincial and municipal levels had ties to Chinese intelligence, a statement which he withdrew few days later.[49]
In 2019, retired Indian Lieutenant General H. S. Panag wrote that the phrase 'salami slicing' as used "by military scholars as well as Army Chief General Bipin Rawat in relation to the Line of Actual Control — is a misnomer". He argues that whatever territory China needed to annex was done prior to 1962. While there have been territorial claims by China after 1962, they are done more to "embarrass" India rather than a form of "permanent salami slicing".[59]
Linda Jakobson, a political scientist, has argued that rather than salami slicing based territorial expansion and decision making, "China's decision-making can be explained by bureaucratic competition between China's various maritime agencies."[60][61] Bonnie S. Glaser argues against this view point, saying "bureaucratic competition among numerous maritime actors [...] is probably not the biggest source of instability. Rather, China's determination to advance its sovereignty claims and expand its control over the South China Sea is the primary challenge."[62]
