The Philippines, China and the US have become trapped in a spiral of tit-for-tat actions driven by sharply conflicting visions of the region’s future. The intensifying cycle consists of reciprocal warnings, threats, saber-rattling and displays of power.
Diplomatic efforts to avoid confrontations have been largely unsuccessful. This game of chicken has brought them to the brink. One or more may be backed – or back itself – into a corner where it has no choice but to confront its opponent militarily or suffer the backlash of its nationalists and warmongers.
There are two current hotspots where one-up-manship could spark a military confrontation. They are Second Thomas Shoal and Scarborough Shoal. These situations have distinct differences but in the fog of nationalism have become intertwined.
Limited sovereignty
Second Thomas Shoal is not above water at high tide and according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) cannot be claimed by any country as sovereign territory. But the feature lies on the Philippines’ legal continental shelf and within its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.
This means the Philippines has sovereignty over the resources and responsibilities for protecting the environment there. It has stationed token troops on a still-commissioned but rusting old warship that it purposely ran aground there to back up its claim. So its government thinks its sovereignty is at stake and that it cannot afford to lose it without undermining its legitimacy.
China maintains it has sovereignty over the feature and its attendant waters based on its controversial historic claim to most of the South China Sea. In the midst of rising tension over the feature, China published a new map showing a 10-dashed line encompassing most of the South China Sea as well as Taiwan. The timing and audacity of this action were widely protested by rival claimants as well as the US and some of its allies.
These theoretical claims are backed up by coast-guard and navy vessels of both sides. The latest steps in this “game” have been China’s attempts to prevent the Philippines from resupplying its troops on Second Thomas Shoal. This has included blocking maneuvers by its coast-guard ships and even the use of water cannons to deter Philippine resupply boats.
But the Philippines has not been cowed, and with verbal and potential kinetic backing by its US ally has persisted in its attempts to resupply its troops.
China’s actions are particularly dangerous because the US has publicly vowed to defend Philippine troops and public vessels if they are attacked in the South China Sea. Apparently China’s use of lasers, water cannons and blocking maneuvers targeting Philippine vessels do not constitute an “attack.” But these actions must be coming closer to the level that would require US military action.
In the latest incident, a US surveillance plane monitored the confrontation. The plane broadcast, “This is a US Navy aircraft in the vicinity of Second Thomas Shoal observing all activities between Filipino and PRC coast guard vessels to include … any unsafe or unprofessional actions.”
It was rumored that the US also had a navy vessel in the vicinity, as did China. However, this did not deter continued aggressive actions by the Chinese vessels.
In the latest go-round, China did relent and allowed the supply ships carrying food, water and other basic necessities to pass for “humanitarian reasons.” But it warned that it will interdict vessels carrying building materials.
The Philippines has made clear it will continue to supply its troops there. It has also indicated it is contemplating filing a complaint under UNCLOS as it did in 2013, probably with the same futile results – as well as enraging China.
The next kinetic move seems to be up to Beijing. But Manila and Washington need to be careful they do not push China into a corner and cause it to take even more aggressive actions.
Rival sovereignty claims
The Scarborough Shoal situation is legally a different kettle of fish. It is above water at high tide and thus a legal rock with a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. It can be claimed as sovereign territory.
Both the Philippines and China claim sovereignty over it. But China physically controls it and blocks Philippine fishermen – sometimes with floating barriers – from fishing in the lagoon where the fish are more concentrated. China claims it is protecting the environment of the lagoon from all fishermen.
Recently on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s direct order and egged on by the US, the Philippine Coast Guard attempted to remove a floating barrier placed there by the China Coast Guard.
While the UNCLOS arbitration panel did not rule in 2016 on the sovereignty question, it did rule that China should not prevent Filipinos from fishing there. In other words, they should share.
There are frequent run-ins there between the Philippines’ fishermen and coast guard on the one hand and China’s coast guard and maritime militia on the other. However, the latest incident was different in that it involved a Philippine warship.
This was a legal and diplomatic mistake, unless Manila is trying to draw in the US, which is bound to defend it in the event of an attack on a Philippine government vessel. China could have responded in kind. It did claim that its coast guard drove the Philippine ship away.
As Filipino legal expert Jay Batongbacal observed this month, the Philippines has to be careful not to provide an excuse for “an overwhelming disproportionate response” from China that could lead to a China-US conflict.
The situation is evolving rapidly, and this is just a current snapshot. This game of chicken is taking place in an already fraught political environment driven by the China-US struggle for regional hegemony.
The geographic scope and frequency of incidents seems to be spreading. Just last week the Philippines complained of “dangerous maneuvers” by a Chinese naval vessel against a Philippine naval vessel in the vicinity of Thitu, which is occupied by the Philippine military but claimed by China. This leaves one wondering, “What’s next?”
The Philippines needs to be careful that it does not become a catalyst sparking a major-power conflagration in which it will be a loser no matter who “wins.”