The current tensions within the South China Sea are rooted in a complex history of overlapping territorial claims dating back centuries. The Treaty of Paris of 1898, which ceded sovereignty over the region to Japan, ultimately failed to resolve the competing claims of various colonial powers – Britain, France, Germany, and later Japan – who demarcated their spheres of influence through ambiguous maps and assertions of historical rights. After World War II, the Republic of China (Taiwan) initially laid claim to the Spratly Islands, followed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. China’s 2013 creation of the “Nine-Dash Line,” a historical claim encompassing almost the entire South China Sea, further complicated the situation, largely ignored by the international community since the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in 2016 that China’s claims were without legal basis. This ruling, however, remains unimplemented by Beijing.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
Several key actors are driving the current dynamic. China’s primary motivation is securing access to valuable resources – including oil and gas deposits – and strategic sea lanes essential for its economic growth and military projection. Beijing views control over the South China Sea as fundamental to its regional power and global ambitions. The Philippines, backed by the United States, continues to challenge China’s expansive claims, citing the Arbitration Tribunal ruling and its treaty obligations to assist a fellow nation under armed attack. Vietnam, also heavily invested in the region’s fisheries and possessing its own historical claims, maintains a cautiously adversarial stance. The United States, while maintaining a policy of “freedom of navigation” and supporting its Southeast Asian allies, has been constrained by domestic political considerations and a reluctance to directly confront the PLA Navy. “The situation is a dangerous game of brinkmanship,” noted Dr. Eleanor Vance, Senior Fellow at the International Security Studies Institute. “China’s actions are designed to maximize its leverage, while the U.S. faces the challenge of responding without triggering a wider conflict.”
Recent Developments & The Kuala Lumpur Discussions
Over the past six months, the situation has deteriorated noticeably. In August 2024, a Chinese coast guard vessel used a water cannon to damage a Philippine supply boat near Second Thomas Shoal, escalating tensions. In September, the PLA Navy conducted a large-scale live-fire exercise in the SCS. Furthermore, satellite imagery revealed significant expansion of military facilities on several artificial islands, including increased radar and communications infrastructure. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s subsequent call with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, as reported in a recent press release, signaled a renewed effort at dialogue, following a period of relative silence following the Shoal incident. These discussions, intended to continue the conversations initiated in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year, are focused primarily on de-escalation and establishing clearer communication protocols to prevent further incidents. However, the underlying strategic divergence remains substantial.
Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts
Within the next six months, we can anticipate continued military posturing, further development of artificial islands, and a high probability of further incidents involving the Chinese coast guard and Philippine vessels. The risk of a miscalculation – a collision, an accidental shooting – remains a significant concern. Looking further out, over the next 5–10 years, the long-term impact will likely be a further erosion of the existing international legal framework. China’s sustained military buildup and increasing assertiveness will continue to challenge the norms of freedom of navigation and maritime security. “The risk of a protracted, low-intensity conflict is rising,” warns Dr. James Harding, Director of the Maritime Security Project at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The absence of a credible deterrent and the continued commitment to a ‘strategic ambiguity’ approach have created a dangerous environment.” The potential for the South China Sea to become a zone of direct confrontation between China and the United States, with regional partners caught in the crossfire, represents a critical test for the stability of the global order.
Moving Forward
The situation demands a nuanced and concerted response. Immediate steps should include increased diplomatic engagement, particularly with regional partners, to bolster a unified front. Simultaneously, the U.S. should reinforce its alliances in the region, potentially through expanded military presence and robust security assistance. Long-term, a comprehensive strategy that combines diplomatic pressure, economic leverage, and a credible deterrent is essential. The question isn’t whether to engage, but how to engage strategically, while simultaneously upholding international law and safeguarding vital maritime trade routes. We must ensure the continued open discussion of these complexities, acknowledging the profound challenges ahead.