Hot Words in South China Sea
Marcos lays out Red line in South China Sea, US has no locus standi in meddling in South China Sea affairs.
Marcos Red Line in South China Sea
BY Gabriel Dominguez (The Japan Times)
With Manila’s relations with Beijing sliding into dangerous territory, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has warned Beijing that if a Philippine citizen were to be deliberately killed in a clash with the China Coast Guard, this would be “very close to what we define as an act of war.”
Should the incidents in the South China Sea get to that point, “we would have certainly crossed the Rubicon,” Marcos said Friday in response to a question after delivering a keynote speech to kick off this year’s IISS Shangri-la Dialogue security conference in Singapore.
“Is that a red line? Almost certainly. It's going to be a red line,” added the Philippine leader, warning that Manila would respond “accordingly” while its treaty ally, the United States, would hold “the same standard” and support the Philippines in any joint action.
From laser pointers temporarily blinding Philippine sailors to collisions at sea near key military outposts, encounters between Chinese and Philippine vessels have become more tense in the strategically and economically important South China Sea, where the two nations have overlapping claims.
In particular, a submerged reef known as Second Thomas Shoal has become a dangerous flash point, with Chinese vessels harassing ships aiming to resupply a Philippine garrison atop the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting ship that a former Philippine government purposely grounded in 1999 to assert sovereignty over the atoll.
Amid the rapidly escalating tensions, Marcos used his speech at Asia’s top regional security conference to defend his country’s claims in the resource-rich waters and send a strong message to China: “We will do whatever it takes to protect our sovereignty.”
Speaking before delegates and senior defense officials from more than 40 countries and regions, including the U.S. and Chinese defense chiefs, the 66-year-old denounced what he said were “illegal coercive, aggressive and deceptive actions” that “continue to violate our sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction."
Citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as well as a 2016 international arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines, Marcos vowed to do “whatever it takes to protect our sovereign home to the last square inch, to the last square millimeter.”
“The life-giving waters of the West Philippine Sea flow in the blood of every Filipino. We cannot allow anyone to detach it from the totality of the maritime domain that renders our nation home,” Marcos said, referring to Manila’s official designation for areas of the South China Sea that it claims.
“I do not intend to yield,” he added. “Filipinos do not yield.”
To achieve this, Marcos pledged to continue bolstering the country’s defenses and develop the capacity to project the country's forces into areas “where we must, by constitutional duty, and by legal right, protect our interests.”
At the same time, the Philippine leader vowed to not only strengthen Manila’s alliance with Washington but also international partnerships with Australia, Japan, France, South Korea and India, as well as all members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
At the same time, he described the military presence of the United States in the region as not only stabilizing but also “crucial to regional peace,” urging Washington and Beijing to manage their rivalry “in a responsible manner.”
Although attention has largely focused on the Taiwan Strait as the most likely area where war could erupt in Asia, there are growing concerns that the spark for conflict could be lit in the South China Sea, most likely over an accident or miscalculation.
Earlier this month, Beijing rolled out regulations boosting the Chinese coast guard’s powers to detain foreign “trespassers” for up to 60 days without trial — a move criticized by Marcos as further heightening tensions. The new policy, set to take effect from June 15, is an “escalation of the situation,” the Philippine leader said earlier this week, calling the development “very worrisome.”
China has also declared a unilateral fishing ban in parts of the South China Sea until Sept. 16, including in the disputed Scarborough Shoal, which Manila wants to open to international scrutiny after accusing Chinese vessels of destroying the local ecosystem.
The two sides have also traded barbs over an elusive “gentlemen’s agreement” that China claims has kept the peace in a disputed area of the waterway for years.
While China claims some 90% of the energy-rich South China Sea that is also home to crucial trade routes, Manila insists that the Second Thomas Shoal falls within its exclusive economic zone — which extends 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from its coast — and has vowed to “never abandon the area.”
While there are many factors affecting bilateral ties, Marcos’ election in May 2022 last year arguably brought about the biggest change in course.
Shortly after taking office, the new leader took a more assertive stance on territorial disputes, breaking with his predecessor’s staunch pro-China policies, vowing not to lose “an inch" of territory and regularly exposing China’s behavior at sea.
The recent developments are just the latest in a series of clashes that are not only worsening Sino-Philippine ties but could also threaten to escalate into a larger crisis, including one that draws in the United States, which has a mutual defense treaty with Manila.
At a trilateral summit last month with Marcos and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, U.S. President Joe Biden reiterated Washington’s commitment to defending the Philippines from armed attack in the South China Sea. “Any attack on Philippine aircraft, vessels or armed forces in the South China Sea would invoke our mutual defense treaty,” Biden said last month.
The Philippines’ proximity to both Taiwan and key sea lanes in the South China Sea makes it an attractive staging point for the U.S. and its allies that could boost their ability to respond to regional crises. This has made reinforcing defense relations with Manila a critical element in both Tokyo and Washington’s plans to both deter and counter Beijing.
Washington, which last year gained access to four more military sites in the Philippines — in addition to a previously agreed five — has been rapidly ramping up Philippine defense capabilities as part of a 10-year roadmap that will see Manila receive equipment such as radars, military transport aircraft and drones, as well as coastal— and air-defense systems.
Washington has also been increasing the scale and complexity of both bilateral and multilateral exercises, including the temporary deployment of a midrange missile system to the Philippines — the first time the U.S. has done so since the end of the Cold War — in a move criticized by Beijing as an act of escalation.
For its part, Tokyo has also been deepening defense and security ties with Manila, agreeing earlier this month to provide a $415 million loan for the construction of five additional 97-meter-long patrol vessels for Philippine Coast Guard, in addition to the two already transferred in 2022 and the 10 44-meter-long vessels agreed in 2013. Deliveries of the five new ships are slated for 2027 and 2028.
Japan and the Philippines are expected to sign a visiting-forces agreement during next month’s meeting of their foreign and defense ministers in Manila. The move will not only facilitate joint military exercises but potentially also allow rotational deployments by the Self-Defense Forces.
While Japan and the United States have been separately strengthening ties with Manila, Washington has recently worked to bring the countries closer to deepen trilateral cooperation and build up what it calls “collective capacity” amid shared regional security concerns.
These steps include holding trilateral coast guard exercises and patrols this year to improve interoperability, including plans for Philippine and Japan Coast Guard members to patrol aboard U.S. Coast Guard vessels.
Marcos has also sought to expand the country’s network of security partners beyond Washington and Tokyo, signing security cooperation deals with the European Union, India, Australia, Vietnam, Brunei and Britain while also aiming to clinch visiting-forces agreements with Japan, Canada and France.
The pacts could give Manila one of the most robust security networks in Asia, while also raising the global stakes in these regional disputes.
US has no locus standi in meddling in South China Sea affairs
By Global Times
"To manage disputes in South China Sea, the only viable option is negotiation," Ong Tee Keat (OTK), president of Malaysian think tank Belt and Road Initiative Caucus for Asia Pacific and former deputy speaker of the Lower House of the Malaysian Parliament, told Global Times (GT) reporter Li Aixin in an exclusive interview. OTK also raised concerns that inviting the president of the Philippines Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr to give a keynote address at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue 2024 will not help in seeking dialogue and solutions.
GT: In a recent interview, you mentioned, "No military posturing and provocative language by any party at the behest of external powers should be allowed to distract, let alone disrupt, the overall symbiotic China-ASEAN partnership." Would you mind elaborating on this perspective?
OTK: ASEAN, as a regional bloc dedicated to promoting economic cooperation and regional peace, has its collective aspirations and concerns to prioritize. Under the prevailing non-interference principle, all member states share the understanding that domestic issues should be solved on their own without any outside intervention, and that each has sufficient state strength to handle these issues.
In this context, "Any form of military posturing and provocative language by any party at the behest of external powers" is certainly anathema to ASEAN's way to settle disputes by peaceful means, along with renunciation of the threat or use of force.
In the prevailing face-off between China and the Philippines, external powers are visibly involved and the target is the top trading partner of ASEAN. Any misjudgment or mishandling of the military stand-off on the high seas would invariably flare up the conflict, leaving the regional peace and partnership in tatters.
The external powers, notably the US, are not stakeholders involved in the dispute, thus having no locus standi in meddling in the case. Their sabre rattling in the disputed area is absolutely unnecessary, unconstructive and provocative in nature as it would only serve to up the ante in the dispute, rendering it more intractable.
GT: In recent years, the US has strengthened its ties with Japan and South Korea for security cooperation, enhanced its "Indo-Pacific Strategy," initiated AUKUS, promoted the Quad, and attempted to restructure Asian supply chains. How do you assess the security changes brought about by the US regional strategy in the Indo-Pacific region?
OTK: The deployment of troops and military presence in the vassalized allies of Washington under the various pacts were virtually devised to make the US feel safer in face of the purported "systemic challenge" posed by China. It's not a secret that the entire US-led security architecture is part of its "Indo-Pacific Strategy" targeting China, albeit on the pretext of serving the interest of Indo-Pacific security.
Parallel to this, the Supply Chain Agreement under the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) that claims to keep the Asia-Pacific supply chain resilient is visibly intended to exclude China from the entire supply chain. Yet, as of today, the only outcome brought to the table is the announcement on cobbling a crisis response mechanism in face of supply chain disruption, not a viable alternative that can deliver in times of crisis, thus leaving the entire mechanism porous and vulnerable.
All in all, the security changes brought about by the US regional strategy in the Indo-Pacific region are largely reactive in nature, primarily serving the interest of upholding its global primacy and hegemony in the region.
Read more here.