Tensions between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea have escalated significantly, making the region a critical flashpoint. The core of the conflict lies in two highly contested maritime features within Manila’s 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which Beijing claims. These features include the Scarborough Shoal, rich in fish stocks, and the Second Thomas Shoal, where a small group of Filipino sailors are stationed on a deliberately grounded warship. China’s assertion of sovereignty, based on the controversial nine-dash line that encompasses nearly 90% of the South China Sea, has led to heightened diplomatic tension and maritime confrontations.

The South China Sea is a crucial maritime region, both strategically and economically. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in 2016 that China’s expansive claims via its nine-dash line have no basis under international law, granting a landmark victory to the Philippines. Despite this, China continues to assert its claims aggressively, rejecting the ruling. Beijing has deployed hundreds of coastguard vessels to patrol the contested areas, alarming the Philippines and other regional players, including the United States, which is wary of China’s growing military power and territorial ambitions.

Recent encounters between Chinese and Philippine vessels have grown increasingly tense. China’s coastguard has been using “grey-zone” tactics, such as water cannons, ramming maneuvers, and even military-grade lasers, to obstruct Philippine resupply missions to the Second Thomas Shoal. These actions have led to damaged boats and injured crew members, escalating the conflict further. China’s insistence that the Philippines remove the grounded warship has been met with firm resistance from Manila.

China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea has exacerbated tensions with the Philippines, particularly in light of Manila’s strengthening ties with Washington. The most recent conflict involves the BRP Sierra Madre, a World War II-era landing ship deliberately grounded by the Philippines on the contested Second Thomas Shoal (Ren’ai Jiao) in the Spratly Islands in 1999, which now serves as a strategic outpost. On March 23, China deployed a water cannon against a Philippine vessel on a resupply mission to the Sierra Madre, intensifying the conflict. The Spratly Islands, situated between the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia, are subject to numerous overlapping territorial claims, including some of the southernmost points of China’s expansive nine-dash line. While the islands, cays, and reefs within this archipelago may hold little intrinsic value, their strategic location on critical trade and supply routes elevates their importance.

The BRP Sierra Madre’s history encapsulates the broader conflicts in Asia. Constructed by the United States for the Pacific theater in World War II in 1944, the vessel was later extensively utilized during the Vietnam War. It was transferred to the South Vietnamese Navy in 1970 and subsequently acquired by the Philippines in 1976 following the fall of Saigon. In contrast, China has fortified its presence on the nearby Mischief Reef as part of its extensive sand-dredging operations to consolidate its claims in the South China Sea. The Philippines claims approximately two dozen marines on the Sierra Madre, necessitating continuous resupply missions, which are frequently disrupted by Chinese harassment. The 80-year-old ship is on the verge of collapse, heightening the urgency of refurbishment and increasing the frequency of clashes between Philippine resupply boats and Chinese vessels.

China’s longstanding maritime disputes with the Philippines add further complexity to the situation. Despite the 2016 ruling by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) tribunal in favor of the Philippines, Beijing has refused to recognize or attend the proceedings. The tenure of then-Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte saw a reduction in tensions due to his pro-China stance, even as the tribunal’s decision remained unenforced. In contrast, the current administration under President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos has adopted a more traditional pro-U.S. stance, fortifying relations with Washington. The United States has reciprocated this shift, overlooking past grievances related to the Marcos regime to strengthen ties with the Philippines. Furthermore, Marcos’s administration has sought alliances with other regional powers, including Vietnam, Australia, and Japan, exacerbating China’s displeasure.

Marcos also faces domestic opposition from Duterte, who has called for independence for his home region of Mindanao despite his daughter’s position as vice president. Beijing may be leveraging these internal divisions to apply pressure on Marcos’s administration.

The potential for conflict between China and the Philippines is particularly perilous due to Manila’s ability to invoke its mutual defense treaty with Washington. While numerous steps exist between Coast Guard clashes and full-scale war, the possibility of fatalities or the sinking of a vessel could trigger a major crisis. Such risk calls for rapid de-escalation efforts between China and the United States to prevent a broader conflict.

The international community, including the United States, Japan, Australia, France, and Britain, has condemned China’s actions, labeling them as dangerous and destabilizing. The U.S. has particularly been vocal, with senior military officials describing China’s actions as illegal and aggressive. Despite this international condemnation, the problem persists, highlighting the limited success of current efforts to resolve the dispute.

One major issue is the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms to uphold international law, as demonstrated by China’s dismissal of The Hague’s ruling. The diplomatic responses, primarily involving condemnations and calls for restraint, fail to address the root causes of the conflict. China’s strategy leverages its superior maritime capabilities and the ambiguity of “grey-zone” tactics to assert control without crossing thresholds that would trigger a military response.

Moreover, the strategic importance of the South China Sea for global trade routes and regional security complicates the situation. The U.S. and its allies have increased their military presence and conducted freedom of navigation operations, but these actions risk further escalation rather than resolving the underlying territorial disputes. The response also fails to account for the complex historical and nationalistic sentiments that drive China’s and the Philippines’ positions.

Addressing the South China Sea tensions requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond military deterrence and diplomatic condemnations. Firstly, there needs to be a renewed emphasis on multilateral diplomacy involving all regional stakeholders, including China, the Philippines, members of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other interested parties like the U.S., Japan, and Australia. Establishing a comprehensive framework for dialogue and conflict resolution could help manage and eventually resolve the territorial disputes. A potential solution could involve the creation of a joint development agreement for contested areas. This would allow both China and the Philippines to exploit resources such as fisheries and oil and gas reserves collaboratively, while temporarily shelving sovereignty claims. Such an arrangement could reduce tensions and foster cooperation, transforming the contested zones from points of conflict into areas of shared benefit.

Another critical aspect is strengthening regional security mechanisms. ASEAN could play a pivotal role by enhancing its conflict resolution capabilities and establishing clear protocols for maritime conduct. This could include an ASEAN-led maritime patrol initiative to ensure freedom of navigation and prevent accidental conflicts. Enhanced intelligence sharing and coordinated responses to provocations could help maintain security. Additionally, confidence-building measures between China and the Philippines are essential. These could involve regular high-level meetings, military-to-military dialogues, and joint humanitarian missions. Such initiatives would build trust and reduce the likelihood of miscalculations leading to conflict.

Lastly, it is crucial to structure international legal frameworks more effectively. While the Hague’s ruling was a significant step, ensuring compliance requires broader support from the international community. Economic and diplomatic pressures, such as targeted sanctions and international isolation for non-compliance, could compel China to adhere to international norms.

In conclusion, while the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines is deeply complex, a combination of multilateral diplomacy, joint resource development, strengthened regional security mechanisms, confidence-building measures, and effective enforcement of international law could offer a path toward sustainable resolution. These strategies require patience, commitment, and a willingness to prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains.