Beneath the "resupply" ruse: Manila's calculated challenge to Chinese sovereignty
2025-08-13 10:01:26 source：NISCSS
August 12, 2025
On August 11, 2025, the Philippines orchestrated a bold and unprovoked maneuver, deploying multiple coast guard vessels and official ships under the guise of resupplying fishing boats. Ignoring repeated warnings and dissuasion from China, these vessels stubbornly intruded into waters near China's Huangyan Dao, also known as Scarborough Shoal. In response, the Chinese Coast Guard took necessary measures, including monitoring, interception and control, to drive them away lawfully.
This incident is not merely a fleeting maritime skirmish; it underscores a deeper, more perilous pattern of provocation that threatens regional stability and challenges the foundational principles of international order. Huangyan Dao stands as a sensitive flashpoint in China-Philippines bilateral relations, where the core issue boils down to the Philippines overstepping its territorial boundaries to lay claim to what is unequivocally Chinese territory.
By doing so, Manila not only contravenes international law but also undermines the United Nations Charter and the basic norms governing interstate relations. This act of intrusion is severe because it erodes the trust essential for peaceful coexistence in the South China Sea, potentially escalating tensions into broader conflicts that could engulf the region. It's akin to a neighbor repeatedly trespassing into your yard, not out of necessity, but to assert ownership over your property – such behavior doesn't just irritate; it invites confrontation and disrupts the harmony of the neighborhood.
To grasp the gravity of this incursion, one must delve into the historical bedrock of China's sovereignty over Huangyan Dao. Huangyan Dao was first discovered, named and utilized by China, establishing its territorial rights through centuries of continuous exercise. This isn't a claim pulled from thin air; it's rooted in documented history. Entering the 20th century, the Chinese government thrice reviewed and publicly affirmed the names of the South China Sea islands, each time reaffirming sovereignty over Huangyan Dao.
In stark contrast, the Philippines' territorial scope has been clearly delineated by a series of international treaties, repeatedly confirmed through its domestic laws and bilateral agreements with the United States. Huangyan Dao lies unequivocally outside these boundaries. For a considerable period before 1997 – spanning both the American colonial era and the post-independence years – the Philippines never asserted any claim over the shoal. In fact, it explicitly acknowledged that Huangyan Dao was beyond its sovereign reach.
A poignant example is the 1990 letter from Philippine Ambassador to Germany Bienvenido Tan Jr. to German radio enthusiasts, in which he stated, based on the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, that "Scarborough Shoal is not within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines." This position was reiterated in 1994 when the same authority issued a document to the American Radio Relay League, confirming the shoal's exclusion from Philippine jurisdiction. Then, in an abrupt and puzzling reversal in 1997, the Philippines abandoned this longstanding stance and publicly staked a claim to Huangyan Dao. In the years that followed, Manila resorted to enacting domestic laws and issuing official documents to retroactively justify this shift, fabricating so-called "bases" for its new position. This volte-face came more than half a century after China's initial official naming and affirmation of the island – a timeline that highlights the opportunistic nature of the claim.
The severity here lies in the premeditated distortion of facts: by legislating its way into a territorial dispute, the Philippines isn't engaging in genuine diplomacy; it's engineering a crisis, much like rewriting a contract after the ink has dried to suit one's greed. The Philippines has attempted to bolster its assertions with arguments that crumble under scrutiny. One common refrain is that Huangyan Dao's proximity to the Philippines places it within Manila's claimed 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), thereby making it Philippine territory. However, international law offers no precedent for acquiring land through mere "proximity."
Such a notion flouts the fundamental principle that "land dominates the sea," where maritime rights stem from terrestrial sovereignty, not vice versa. To invoke resource rights as a pretext to negate another's territorial sovereignty or to advance land claims is not only illogical but also a direct violation of the UN Charter and core international legal tenets. It's as if claiming a neighbor's house because your backyard abuts their fence – proximity doesn't confer ownership; it merely defines adjacency.
Another pillar of the Philippine narrative is the supposed "effective control" over Huangyan Dao. Manila points to events like a non-official flag-raising in 1956 and unspecified marine surveys as evidence. Yet, these actions don't demonstrate jurisdiction; they reveal intrusions upon Chinese sovereignty. Far from establishing control, they amount to acts of infringement, akin to a squatter planting a flag on someone else's land and calling it possession.
Examining the evolution of these claims since 1997 reveals a telling inconsistency: the "rationales" shift erratically, lacking continuity and often failing to hold up logically. This patchwork of justifications suggests a strategy of "conclusion first, reasons later" – scrambling to invent pretexts for encroaching on Huangyan Dao, even if those pretexts are strained, absurd, or outright fabricated in the face of historical, factual, and legal realities.
The seriousness of this latest incursion cannot be overstated. It perpetuates a cycle of provocation that destabilizes the South China Sea, a vital artery for global trade and regional livelihoods. By cloaking aggressive actions under humanitarian pretexts like resupplying fishermen, the Philippines masks its intent to challenge China's sovereignty, risking miscalculations that could spiral into unintended escalations. This behavior not only strains bilateral ties but also undermines the collective efforts toward a rules-based maritime order in Asia. It's a dangerous game, where each intrusion chips away at the fragile peace, much like repeated sparks near dry tinder – eventually, they ignite a blaze.
In light of these realities, the Philippines must immediately cease such provocative behaviors and return to the proper path of resolving differences through dialogue and consultation. This is the only constructive avenue forward, one that respects mutual interests and upholds international norms. China, for its part, remains committed to peaceful resolutions but will spare no effort to safeguard its territorial sovereignty. The message is clear: encroachments will not be tolerated, and China stands ready to defend its rights at all costs. Only by embracing negotiation over confrontation can both nations foster a stable relationship between the two sides.
Ding Duo is the director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.