A provisional arrangement between China and the Philippines, intended to smooth their troubles in the South China Sea, has quickly unraveled. Now more than ever, Manila and the international community need to call Beijing’s “gray zone” activities in the contested waters what they are: Illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive. It would bring further transparency to a situation that has the potential to turn into a major global flashpoint.
The moniker, known as ICAD, was first coined by a Philippine general. Gray zone activities refer to provocative actions that are not so egregious they would demand a warlike response, but neither are they of a peaceful nature.
For Beijing, this has meant using water cannons to harass Manila’s vessels and intimidating collisions in the waterway. The most recent clash was on June 17 during a Philippine resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusty US World War II-era ship grounded on Second Thomas Shoal (Renai Shoal, 仁愛暗沙) with a few Philippine marines and service members on board.
Illustration: Mountain People
Manila said that a China Coast Guard crew used bladed weapons to puncture boats, seized guns and rammed Philippine vessels.
Deploying more forceful language for China’s behavior would not only enable Manila to press home the point that what Beijing is doing is wrong, but it could also help to focus the region on how to coordinate a better response.
It would enable countries to consider more concrete measures they can take if the international community deemed China’s actions to be deceptive, or coercive and aggressive, and it could merit a wider discussion about what regional alliances might come into play.
Right now, the Philippines is having to rely on its partner, the US, to help it ward off Beijing’s intimidation.
Bringing clarity to China’s gray zone activities would dispel the “ambiguity” around the term itself, Australian think tank the Lowy Institute says.
The phrase “gray zone” is open to misinterpretation, and allows for a degree of doubt regarding Beijing’s original intentions, it says.
It is not just the Philippines that has been the target of China’s coercive behavior. Earlier this year, a Chinese fighter jet intercepted an Australian helicopter in international waters. The incident prompted outrage, with Canberra saying it was an act that risked unsettling improving ties between the two countries.
The Philippines has been pushing for the term ICAD to be adopted because it has been the biggest target of Beijing’s assertiveness in the South China Sea. It could help from a legal perspective, said Ray Powell, founder and director of SeaLight, a maritime transparency project of Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation.
“The Filipinos have grown uncomfortable with gray zone as a term. They want something more clarifying, and ICAD has the benefit of labeling these actions clearly,” Powell said.
The right name can make all the difference. Beijing knows this, and uses it to its advantage. The South China Sea is called Ren’ai Jiao (仁愛礁) in all official Chinese documentation and public communications, harking back to the name used centuries ago by several dynasties, a historical legacy that it uses to justify its present-day claims over the waters.
It insists on Taiwan being called Chinese Taipei in international sporting events. On Chinese maps, Beijing has renamed places on the border with India despite New Delhi firmly asserting its territorial rights over the area.
Manila, sensing the power of the name game, also decided to use its own for the parts of the South China Sea it claims.
In September 2012, then-Philippine president Benigno Aquino III signed an order requiring all government agencies to use the name West Philippine Sea. In 2016, he brought Beijing to an international tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague Tribunal found in the Philippines’ favor, but China simply ignored the ruling.
No doubt the Sierra Madre issue is top of the agenda for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin while they tour Asia.
Blinken and Austin arrived in the Philippines yesterday. It is a key stop for both diplomats, and it would be a chance to engage on the kind of support it needs. Words matter — now is the time to find the right ones.
Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China. Previously, she was the BBC’s lead Asia presenter and worked for the BBC across Asia and South Asia for two decades.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
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