China’s approach to addressing the Malacca Dilemma exemplifies the complex interplay of geopolitics, economics, and international law in securing vital trade and energy corridors. Continued diplomatic engagement and adherence to maritime law remain essential to mitigating risks and maintaining stability in this critical region

New Delhi (ABC Live): The "Malacca Dilemma" encapsulates China’s heavy reliance on the Strait of Malacca for energy imports and trade, posing a critical vulnerability in the nation’s energy security and economic stability. As one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, the Strait of Malacca serves as a lifeline for China, handling approximately 80% of its crude oil imports and a significant portion of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. However, this dependence exposes China to various geopolitical, economic, and environmental risks, prompting strategic countermeasures and legal considerations.

Significance of the Strait of Malacca

The Strait of Malacca is a narrow waterway, approximately 900 kilometers long and as narrow as 2.7 kilometers at its tightest point. It connects the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, facilitating the transit of about 25% of the world’s traded goods, including 15.7 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d). For China, a rapidly industrializing economy with a high dependency on energy imports, the strait is a critical conduit. Over 60% of China’s LNG imports also pass through this route.

Global trade through the Strait is valued at approximately $6 trillion annually. However, the high traffic density, susceptibility to piracy, and potential for maritime blockades or environmental disasters amplify the risks for China’s economy and energy security.

Vulnerabilities of China on  the Strait of Malacca

1.      Geopolitical Risks:

China’s maritime trade routes through the Strait are vulnerable to potential blockades by adversaries such as the United States, India, or Japan, particularly during geopolitical conflicts. The proximity of U.S.-aligned nations like Singapore adds to China’s concerns.

2.      Piracy and Congestion:

The Strait of Malacca has a history of piracy, with Southeast Asia accounting for 35% of global piracy incidents as of 2020. High vessel density increases the risk of accidents and environmental disasters, threatening uninterrupted trade flows.

3.      Energy Security:

 A disruption in the strait could leave China’s energy reserves depleted within 90 to 100 days, creating a significant gap in its energy supply chain. This could lead to economic losses exceeding $10 billion in a two-week blockade scenario.

China’s Countermeasures

1.      Diversification of Energy Routes:

China-Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipelines: Operational since 2013, these pipelines carry 22 million tons of crude oil and 12 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, bypassing the Strait of Malacca.

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): The development of Gwadar Port and land routes reduces China’s reliance on maritime transit.

Russia-China Pipelines: The Power of Siberia pipeline supplies 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, with additional projects underway.

2.      Maritime Silk Road:

Investments under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) enhance connectivity and port infrastructure, including facilities in Hambantota (Sri Lanka) and Payra (Bangladesh).

3.      Naval Modernization:

China has expanded the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to over 355 vessels, focusing on securing trade routes in the Indian Ocean. Its first overseas military base in Djibouti strengthens its ability to project power near critical chokepoints.

4.      Energy Transition:

China’s push toward renewable energy—accounting for 50% of global growth in this sector—aims to reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels.

5.      Kra Canal Project:

Proposed as an alternative to the Strait of Malacca, the Kra Canal in Thailand’s Isthmus remains speculative due to economic and geopolitical challenges.

Legal and International Frameworks

China’s Malacca Dilemma also intersects with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Key legal precedents and principles include:

1.      Freedom of Navigation:

The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949) established the right of innocent passage through international straits, applicable to the Strait of Malacca. UNCLOS Articles 38 and 39 further guarantee this freedom while ensuring coastal states’ security.

2.      Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Security:

The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China, 2016) reaffirmed that maritime claims must adhere to UNCLOS. This ruling limits excessive control over navigation rights, relevant to China’s activities near the Strait.

3.      Piracy and Transboundary Harm:

UNCLOS Article 101 defines piracy as a universal crime. Anti-piracy agreements like ReCAAP enable regional cooperation to secure the Strait. The Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) principle on transboundary harm could apply to environmental risks in this chokepoint.

4.      Military Conduct:

The Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (1978) underscored the importance of peaceful navigation and dispute resolution, guiding military interactions in strategic waterways.

Conclusion

The Malacca Dilemma underscores the strategic vulnerabilities associated with overdependence on a single maritime chokepoint. While China has invested heavily in alternative routes, naval capabilities, and energy diversification, the sheer scale of its trade and energy needs makes complete mitigation unfeasible. Legal frameworks such as UNCLOS and international case law provide a foundation for ensuring freedom of navigation and addressing disputes.

China’s approach to addressing the Malacca Dilemma exemplifies the complex interplay of geopolitics, economics, and international law in securing vital trade and energy corridors. Continued diplomatic engagement and adherence to maritime law remain essential to mitigating risks and maintaining stability in this critical region