IN THE modern world, we tend to have a binary, hard and fast outlook when it comes to war. Either a country is at war or it is not; either it has declared war or it has not.
But I think this is an obsolete outlook because it assumes that mutually opposing sovereign entities have only two modes they can take: war or peace, black or white. It fails to take into consideration that there are degrees between peace and war.
Are we at war with China?
Officially, no, but we are certainly not at peace.
What is going on now in the West Philippine Sea is what some analysts would call gray zone tactics. These are tactics meant to skirt around the lines that separate war from peace, to bend the rules so to speak.
They are a form of escalation but not to the extent that would cause war because, make no mistake, China doesn’t want war to start in the West Philippine Sea.
Gray tactics can take on many forms. They can take on the role of economic coercion, interference by nongovernment organizations (NGOs), political lobbying/interference, use of mercenary organizations, etc. Many of these evolved out of the needs of realpolitik and of achieving certain goals without escalating to war.
The situation in the West Philippine Sea is a good example. No one wants to start a war over water cannons, injuries or no, but they have the possibility of demoralizing our personnel there, especially if nothing changes.
And that’s the takeaway in all this: Gray Zone Tactics are anything that a country can get away with, or at the very least, get away with without escalating a tense situation.
So if our leaders want to change the situation in the West Philippine Sea, they better come up with gray zone tactics of our own, or at least counter China’s water cannons. Gray Zone Tactics only work if one side does not respond emphatically./PN
