Is it a benign tool for civilian use, or a military-grade weapon?
The answer to this will determine if beaming a laser at the coast guard ship of another country, temporarily blinding the crew, constitutes an attack.
In case the laser is deemed to be weapons-grade, it can be construed as an armed attack. And if the target happens to be an asset of a country formally allied with the United States, a Mutual Defense Treaty can be invoked. The US has reminded one and all that the MDT can be invoked in case of armed attack. Beijing harrumphed that the US likes raising the MDT at every opportunity.
Last Saturday, President Marcos said invoking the country’s MDT with the US at this point could ratchet up tension in the South China Sea – and he still prefers to pursue the peaceful path.
He issued the statement as Beijing moved to downplay an incident near Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal on Feb. 6, when a Chinese Coast Guard ship came within 150 yards of a Philippine Coast Guard vessel, and beamed blue and green lasers at the ship that was on a resupply mission to Philippine troops in the shoal. The PCG said one of its crew was temporarily blinded by the CCG lasers.
Beijing initially pinned the blame for the incident on the Philippines for intruding into Chinese territory. Manila filed a diplomatic protest and the US condemned the incident, with a reminder about the MDT.
China has since changed its tack, with Ambassador Huang Xilian claiming a laser speed detector and green light pointer, both handheld and not military-grade, were used.
The PCG has disputed Beijing’s claim that a CCG vessel, which is under China’s Central Military Commission, used civilian-grade lasers. Last Saturday, President Marcos himself supported the PCG’s description of the lasers as military-grade.
Beijing’s story is in keeping with the “gray zone” tactics used in its coast guard operations. As described by think tank RAND, gray zone activities and operations fall between peace and war, below the threshold of conventional warfare, with the line between civil and military actions blurred.
The CCG is authorized under Chinese law to use even lethal force against foreign non-commercial vessels including warships. Unlike the PCG, which is a civilian agency like most other coast guards, the CCG engages in constabulary, gray zone and combat operations.
A CCG vessel can ram and sink a foreign boat, as has been done with a Philippine fishing boat. The response of the previous administration to the sinking can be likened to the admonition to sit back and enjoy it when rape is inevitable.
The CCG has also used powerful water cannons to block Philippine ships within our sovereign waters.
Now the CCG is using lasers.
* * *
Last week a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry claimed the lasers were used merely to gauge distance and direct the PCG ship to safety.
So far, the PCG has not thanked the Chinese for their concern, probably because the ministry spokesperson also described the Philippine version of events as “untruthful.” Did Beijing actually call Manila a liar, or did something get lost in translation?
Instead of a thank you, the PCG asked why the CCG ship had to use lasers when it has radar to easily assess distance and direction of another vessel.
PCG spokesman Commodore Armand Balilo told “The Chiefs” last week on Cignal TV’s One News that international protocols limit maritime engagement to white-to-white or gray-to-gray – meaning civilian to civilian ship, or navy to navy, respectively.
But how do you adhere to this protocol when the Chinese Coast Guard operates in the gray zone, between white and gray?
Deploying these white-gray ships to protect massive swarms of Chinese fishing boats intruding into neighboring countries’ exclusive economic zones is an underhanded way of staking baseless maritime claims and militarizing the South China Sea, without activating US security alliances in the region.
Balilo said Philippine security officials are currently discussing the appropriate response to the threats posed by the white-gray Chinese ships.
Being civilian ships, PCG vessels cannot carry military-grade weaponry such as big naval guns. Can they be equipped with powerful lasers?
* * *
Countries with the means are ramping up capabilities for electromagnetic or electronic warfare. At the end of December 2015, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army centralized the support units of its branches and created a fifth branch: the Strategic Support Force. This is in charge of cyber, outer space, information, psychological and electronic warfare.
Lasers are among the weapons in electronic warfare. Aerospace and defense industry giant Lockheed Martin is developing cutting-edge laser weaponry for the US military.
This is the company’s description of the weaponry: “At sea, in the air and on the ground, Lockheed Martin is developing laser weapon systems to protect warfighters on the battlefield. Combined with expert platform integration, these systems are designed to defeat a growing range of threats to military forces and infrastructure.”
“Our technology today is ready to defend against small rockets, artillery shells and mortars, small unmanned aerial vehicles, small attack boats and lightweight ground vehicles that are approximately a mile way. As fiber laser power levels increase, our systems will be able to disable larger threats and do so across greater distances. When operated in conjunction with kinetic energy systems, these systems can serve as a force multiplier.”
In an article on the company’s website with the heading “Speed-of-light Protection,” a quote of its head for directed energy systems was highlighted: “Our beam control technology enables precision equivalent to shooting a beach ball off the top of the Empire State Building from the San Francisco Bay Bridge.”
A senior fellow in the laser and sensors system also stated: “Our fiber lasers operate with an efficiency that generates less heat and exists in a smaller package allowing easier incorporation into various defense platforms. Our ALADIN laser has operated in the field for two years with no need for realignment, proving both the lethality and the reliability of our solutions.”
Even as we continue to pursue peaceful ways of resolving disputes and engaging with China, we cannot afford to shrug off the harassment of our ships using lasers.
We should learn our lesson from the start of Chinese occupation of Panganiban (Mischief) Reef in the 1990s, now a Chinese military installation. For a long time, Beijing insisted that the huts erected on the reef were merely shelters for fishermen… until they weren’t.