THE RETURN OF UNITED STATES (US) POLICY OF CONTAINMENT ANDEVOLVING SINO-US CONTEST FOR MARITIME SUPREMACY

Maritime affairs, strategy, gunboat diplomacy, naval policy, and maritime policy can be found in the lexicon and available literature on naval affairs. Contrary to the abovementioned terminologies used by notable experts in the field including Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan authors have used the term “maritime/naval foreign policy.” Deliberate use of the term is aimed to compel people to pay attention and widely use it in the literature. The qualitative research method is deemed appropriate for the completion of this study. The hypothesis formulated in this paper is that naval might cannot be viewed alone as a means to achieve political, military, territorial, and economic objectives. This academic study emphasizes major powers' navies are intrinsically superior to indigenous organs commanding seas and have foreign policies. The paper emphasizes that navies of hegemonic powers enjoy autonomy and influence decision-making processes and outcomes at home and abroad. The primary purpose of navies is to grow parasitically on state resources, build maritime empires outside the sphere of influence of political leadership, civilian bureaucracy, and rival armed forces, and often avoid providing information or if necessary, provide information on a need-to-know basis to the ruling political elite based in the center. This study emphasizes the United States (US) desire to remain a preponderant power, preserve status-quo and prevent threats to liberal international order by containing the People's Republic of China (PRC) through the formation of mini-alliances resulting in PRC’s naval foreign policy. Beijing’s naval foreign policy core objective is to enter distant areas and secure the supply of energy shipments to the mainland by securing sea lanes of communications (SLCs). The enthusiastic policy is backed by deployments of aircraft carriers, amphibious naval forces, and the Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ).