Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 The Department of Defense has released a startling report to Congress about the threat posed by the People’s Republic of China. With the growth of the Chinese economy, China has invested in materiel and equipment that places it in the vanguard of the best equipped armed forces in the world. While the American treasury has spent huge amounts of money on the War On Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Chinese government has built an air force, navy, and army that is among the elite in the world. It has technology that will allow war at sea, on land, in the air and in cyberspace.

A vigilant America may read an excerpt of the Chinese Three Warfares doctrine below:

"Three Warfares"
In 2003, the CCP Central Committee and the CMC approved the concept of "Three Warfares", a PLA information warfare concept aimed at influencing the psychological dimensions of military activity:

• Psychological Warfare seeks to undermine an enemy’s ability to conduct combat operations through psychological operations aimed at deterring, shocking, and demoralizing enemy military personnel and supporting civilian populations
• Media Warfare is aimed at influencing domestic and international public opinion to build public and international support for China’s military actions and to dissuade an adversary from pursuing policies perceived to be adverse to China’s interests
• Legal Warfare uses international and domestic laws to gain international support and manage possible political repercussions of China’s military actions

The concept of the "Three Warfares" is being developed for use in conjunction with other military and non-military operations. For example, China has incorporated the concept of Legal Warfare into its attempts to shape international opinion and interpretation of international law. An overwhelming majority of nations throughout the world, including the United States, believe that customary international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), effectively balances the resource-related sovereign rights of littoral states in their EEZ with the freedoms of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the sea of other nations.

This majority view is based upon a sound reading of the negotiating history of UNCLOS, the actual text of UNCLOS itself, and decades of state practice. The PRC, however, appears to be making concerted efforts, through enacting domestic legislation inconsistent with international law, misreading the negotiations and text of UNCLOS, and overlooking decades of state practice in attempts to justify a minority interpretation providing greater authority by littoral states over activities within the EEZ.