China draws red line at Scarborough Shoal

On November 10, China declared territorial sea baselines around the Scarborough Shoal, a contested area in the South China Sea. This move is part of Beijing’s broader strategy to assert territorial claims through legal and operational measures, particularly in response to recent Philippine maritime policy.

Earlier this month, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jnr signed the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act into law. These laws formalise Manila’s jurisdiction over disputed waters and designate strategic maritime corridors for navigation. Drawing on an international arbitration court’s 2016 ruling, which attempted to invalidate China’s sovereignty and jurisdiction claims, the Philippines has sought to strengthen its position amid escalating tensions with China.

China responded swiftly by defining territorial sea baselines, publishing updated maps, assigning administrative codes to disputed areas and naming islands and reefs under its jurisdiction with Chinese characters. These actions underscore Beijing’s determination to cement its claims through legal channels while continuing to reject the 2016 arbitral ruling.

Critics argue that China’s selective invocation of international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) undermines its legitimacy. However, Beijing’s move can be considered a calculated effort to legitimise future enforcement measures while avoiding overt military escalation, a hallmark of Beijing’s broader strategy in contested maritime areas.

In tandem with these legal measures, China has increased its physical presence around the Scarborough Shoal. The Chinese navy and coastguard have conducted intensified patrols and monitored foreign vessels.

China is positioning its legal codification as a counter to the Philippines while justifying its operational actions as lawful defences of its territorial rights. Some analysts warn that this dual strategy risks exacerbating regional tensions. Without swift progress in diplomatic negotiations towards a consensus, this approach could further deepen disputes with the Philippines and other neighbouring states.

Initially deployed during joint military exercises in April, the system was supposedly slated for removal by September. However, American and Filipino security officials have agreed to its continued presence to bolster regional deterrence.

The Typhon system, capable of launching the Standard Missile 6 and Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, significantly extends the Philippines’ defensive posture, potentially covering large portions of the South China Sea.

This deployment aligns with the Biden administration’s broader strategy of countering China’s assertive territorial claims in the Indo-Pacific. For Washington, the Typhon system is a crucial element of its effort to project power and reinforce alliances in the region. However, Beijing views the missile system’s indefinite placement in the Philippines as a direct challenge to its influence and territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction claims.

China has strongly opposed the deployment, warning that it could destabilise the region and escalate tensions. This reflects Beijing’s concern that the US presence in the Philippines signals an enhanced level of American commitment to countering Chinese activities in contested areas.

For the Philippines, hosting the Typhon system represents a strategic shift. Manila is modernising its military capabilities and strengthening its alliance with the US. The Typhon weapons system enhances the Philippines’ ability to defend its territorial waters, particularly in light of ongoing maritime disputes with China.

US and Filipino soldiers fasten a mid-range capability reload fixture to a payload deployment system during a military exercise in northern Luzon, the Philippines, on June 27. 

However, it also draws the Philippines deeper into the US-China rivalry with potential consequences for Manila’s bilateral relations with Beijing. While the deployment may serve as a deterrent, it could also provoke China and thus complicate efforts to stabilise the region.

Neighbouring countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are closely monitoring these developments, wary that China’s legal and operational strategies, coupled with US-Philippine military alignment, could set troubling precedents. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has struggled to present a unified stance on the South China Sea, leaving individual nations to independently navigate these challenges.

For these nations, the growing militarisation of the South China Sea underscores the urgent need for cooperative mechanisms to address overlapping claims and de-escalate tensions.

From a global perspective, the South China Sea remains a critical flashpoint in US-China relations. Washington’s military manoeuvres, including freedom of navigation operations, aim to challenge what it sees as excessive Chinese claims.

However, these actions often exacerbate tensions, as they are accompanied by rhetoric targeting China’s behaviour. While the US aims to reinforce alliances and supposedly promote a rules-based order, it also risks provoking unintended confrontations. It doesn’t help that the US is an external actor that hasn’t ratified Unclos.

China’s baseline demarcations, maritime patrols and US military deployments in the Philippines exemplify the intensifying competition for influence in the Indo-Pacific.

For Beijing, these actions signal a firm commitment to defending its territorial claims, while for Manila, legislative efforts and closer ties with the US bolster its security amid growing regional uncertainty. For Washington, maintaining a strong presence in the region serves as a counterweight to China’s dominance but also polarises an already volatile situation.

As the South China Sea becomes increasingly militarised, stakeholders face the challenge of balancing sovereignty and stability. Regional actors must prioritise multilateral dialogue and adherence to international norms to de-escalate tensions and foster cooperation. While the current dynamics reflect deep-seated rivalries, diplomacy remains the most viable path to ensuring peace and security in one of the world’s most contested maritime regions.

Additionally, finding common ground for cooperative agreements, particularly on resource sharing and freedom of navigation, could help mitigate the risk of escalation. Regional initiatives focused on trust-building and transparency may pave the way for more sustainable resolutions.