While the South China Sea has remained a contested region for a long time, it has emerged as a major security flashpoint in the 21st century with the rise of China as an economic and military power. China’s recent moves against the Philippines are therefore seen as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) imperialistic orientation toward this region and beyond.
However, the latest episode of China’s aggressive posturing must also be seen as a part of its larger approach toward the Indo-Pacific region.
First, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s efforts to strengthen his country’s alliance with the US were seen as a challenge to China’s dominance in the South China Sea. Consequently, Beijing decided to punish the Philippines for preferring the US over China.
Second, with the US being preoccupied with the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war, as well as the exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel, Beijing attempted to test Washington’s desire to fulfill its commitment to its allies, partners and friends in the region.
Third, the return of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to power for a third straight presidential term in January’s election and the global response toward the earthquake in Hualien County on April 3 has shaken the Chinese regime. It was precisely why Beijing tried to undermine Taiwan’s independent existence by thanking the world for its concerns about the latter. At the same time, Xi’s meeting with former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was intended to send a message to the outside world about China’s interference in Taiwan’s domestic affairs and in the region.
Fourth, during the 19th biennial meeting of the Western Pacific Naval Symposium in Qingdao, where China’s northern naval force is based, Beijing used the opportunity to showcase its military expansion. More to the point, one of China’s top military leaders took a harsh line on regional territorial disputes, telling the international naval gathering that the country would strike back with force if its interests came under threat in an opaque reference to Taiwan.
Fifth, China’s refusal to accept the international arbitral tribunal decision of 2016 in favor of the Philippines has underlined Beijing’s inherent contempt for global institutions.
Sixth, China is aware of increasing cooperation among the US, Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia and other countries to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region. This in turn would limit China’s access to the South China Sea.
After all, the Chinese communist regime wishes to establish its dominance in this region through which 60 percent of global maritime trade passes. China also wants to have absolute control over the available natural resources in the South China Sea including oil, gas and hydrocarbons.
Whatever strategic, security and economic and other considerations China has in the South China Sea, the response from the Philippines, the US, Taiwan, Japan, India and other countries have pushed China into a corner. Unlike in the past, the global community has become more vocal in criticizing China’s efforts to militarize the region. For example, US President Joe Biden has warned China that the US would defend the Philippines in case of any attack in the disputed South China Sea.
The joint statement, which was issued after the first-ever meeting among the heads of the Philippines, the US and Japan in Washington last month, stated: “We express our serious concerns about the People’s Republic of China’s [PRC] dangerous and aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.”
The G7 also issued a statement saying: “There is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we oppose China’s militarization, coercive and intimidation activities in the South China Sea.”
More importantly, China’s coercive actions failed to intimidate the Philippines and other countries in the region. In fact, Manila issued strong statements against China’s “dangerous maneuvers.” The Philippine Department of National Defense has signed or entered discussions over new security agreements with at least 18 countries since a Chinese coast guard vessel flashed a military-grade laser at a Philippine coast guard ship in the South China Sea last year.
In a major development, the ASEAN began its first joint naval exercise last year largely in response to China’s belligerent posturing in the region. Last year, Malaysia rejected the latest edition of the “standard map of China” that lays claim to almost the entire South China Sea, including areas off the coast of Malaysian Borneo.
Undoubtedly, the US has once again reiterated its commitment to helping its allies and partners in promoting peace, security and development in the region. The deployment of a US mid-range missile launcher in the Philippines would help Manila prepare to defend its territories amid geopolitical tension over the South China Sea.
India has also provided four batteries of supersonic cruise missiles (BrahMos) to the Philippines. The Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden have offered to supply drones and submarines.
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong (黃英賢) announced A$64 million (US$41.75 million) in funding for maritime security in the South China Sea.
The regional and global reaction to China’s unilateralism in the South China Sea is a welcome development for Taiwan. After all, the development of a strong containment plan against China is in Taiwan’s interest.
At the same time, the change in the attitude of regional countries would surely work as a tool of deterrence for Taipei against Beijing. Efforts should be taken to further consolidate cooperation to protect the South China Sea from Chinese coercion.
Sumit Kumar is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Delhi and a former Ministry of Foreign Affairs visiting fellow at National Chengchi University.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS