China is closely monitoring recent U.S. Actions in the Strait of Hormuz, interpreting them as a potential signal for its own maritime strategy in critical global waterways. As tensions rise over shipping lanes vital to global energy supplies, analysts are assessing whether Beijing may adopt similar tactics to assert influence, particularly in the South China Sea and beyond. The development underscores a growing trend where major powers apply naval presence and selective restrictions to advance geopolitical objectives without direct confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil passes, has long been a flashpoint in U.S.-Iran relations. Recent reports indicate that American naval forces have increased patrols and conducted interdiction operations in the area, citing concerns over Iranian maritime activity. While no formal blockade has been declared, the heightened U.S. Presence has drawn attention from Beijing, which views control of maritime chokepoints as essential to securing its energy imports and trade routes.
China’s reliance on seaborne energy is substantial, with over 80% of its crude oil imports transported by sea, much of it passing through the Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean before reaching Chinese ports. Any disruption to these routes poses a significant risk to national energy security. In response, Beijing has invested heavily in naval capabilities and dual-use infrastructure projects abroad, including port developments under the Belt and Road Initiative, which some analysts argue could serve strategic military purposes in times of crisis.
Although there is no verified evidence that China has directly replicated U.S. Actions in Hormuz, Chinese state media have highlighted American operations as justification for strengthening its own maritime enforcement mechanisms. Official commentary suggests that Beijing interprets U.S. Behavior as establishing a precedent for powerful nations to regulate access to strategic waters based on national security interests—a doctrine that could be applied to regions where China asserts sovereignty, such as the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea.
Experts caution against equating U.S. And Chinese motivations, noting differences in legal frameworks and international legitimacy. The United States typically justifies its actions under international law, including rights of self-defense and freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) challenged by Iran’s claims. China, by contrast, faces widespread criticism for its expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, which an international tribunal rejected in 2016—a ruling Beijing refuses to recognize.
“The real concern is not whether China will copy U.S. Tactics, but whether it will use similar justifications to expand its control over waters it claims as sovereign,” said Dr. Lina Benabdallah, assistant professor of political science at Wake Forest University, in a 2023 interview with Reuters. “When great powers normalize coercive measures in global commons, it erodes the rules-based order that smaller states depend on.”
Recent satellite imagery and maritime tracking data show increased Chinese naval activity near the Natuna Islands, an area where Indonesia, Vietnam and China have overlapping claims. While Beijing describes these operations as routine patrols, neighboring countries have expressed concern over the frequency and proximity to their exclusive economic zones. The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned China’s ambassador in March 2024 to protest what it described as “provocative” vessel incursions, according to a statement published on its official website.
Analysts too point to China’s growing use of “gray zone” tactics—actions that fall short of open conflict but aim to achieve strategic gains through persistence and ambiguity. These include maritime militia deployments, illegal fishing enforcement disguised as law enforcement, and the construction of artificial islands equipped with military infrastructure. Such methods allow Beijing to exert pressure while avoiding direct escalation that could trigger a U.S. Response under mutual defense treaties.
The United States continues to challenge what it views as excessive maritime claims through regular FONOPs, sending warships within 12 nautical miles of features claimed by China in the South China Sea. In 2023, the U.S. Navy conducted over 90 such operations, according to data from the U.S. Seventh Fleet. These missions are designed to assert navigational rights and reject unilateral attempts to restrict access to international waters.
For global markets, the implications are significant. Any escalation in chokepoint tensions—whether in Hormuz, Malacca, or the Taiwan Strait—could disrupt supply chains, increase insurance premiums for shipping, and trigger volatile energy prices. The World Bank estimates that a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could reduce global oil output by up to 5 million barrels per day, significantly impacting economies dependent on imported crude.
As both Washington and Beijing expand their naval footprints, the risk of miscalculation grows. Incidents involving close encounters between warships have increased in recent years, particularly in the South China Sea and East China Sea. While mechanisms exist to prevent escalation—such as the U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement—communication breakdowns during crises remain a concern.
Moving forward, the international community will watch closely for any formal declarations or policy shifts from either power regarding maritime interdiction or exclusion zones. The next key development to monitor is the upcoming Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2024, where defense officials from both nations are expected to address regional security issues, including maritime conduct.
For readers seeking official updates, the U.S. Department of Defense publishes regular reports on freedom of navigation operations, while China’s Ministry of National Defense issues periodic statements on military activities. Both sources provide insight into evolving strategies, though interpretations often diverge based on national perspectives.
What do you think about the growing use of maritime tactics as tools of statecraft? Share your perspective in the comments below, and help spread informed discussion by sharing this article with others interested in global security and international law.