<>
How Beijing views Manila’s diplomatic and maritime maneuvers in the South China Sea has shifted from a stance of localized management to strategic concern, according to recent analysis published by the Lowy Institute and the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. Xiaobo Liu and Sophie Wushuang Yi examine how Chinese foreign policy circles interpret the Philippines’ growing alignment with external security partners and its assertive push to defend maritime claims within its exclusive economic zone.
Shifting Strategic Calculations in Beijing
Chinese policy analysts increasingly view the administration of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a departure from the more accommodationist approach of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. According to the Lowy Institute analysis, Beijing perceives Manila’s strategy not merely as domestic posturing, but as part of a coordinated effort by Washington and its allies to encircle and contain China’s maritime expansion. This perception has driven a harder line in state media and official diplomatic statements from Beijing, framing Philippine supply missions to disputed features like Second Thomas Shoal as sovereignty violations rather than routine logistical runs.
Comparative Approaches to Maritime Disputes
The following comparison illustrates the competing diplomatic postures:
- Beijing’s Stance: Advocates for bilateral negotiations without external mediation, asserting historical rights within the Nine-Dash Line and blaming Washington for militarizing the waterway.
- Manila’s Stance: Relies heavily on the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that invalidated China’s expansive claims, while actively expanding joint naval patrols and exercises with the United States, Japan, and Australia.
- ASEAN’s Role: Continues protracted negotiations for a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, though internal divisions among member states limit the bloc’s ability to enforce binding resolutions.
Implications for Regional Stability
The divergence in how Beijing and Manila view their maritime boundary disputes raises the risk of tactical miscalculation. Because Beijing views these encounters through the lens of national sovereignty while Manila views them as rights guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), finding diplomatic compromise remains challenging.
As both nations dig in—with Manila formalizing security pacts with Western allies and Beijing expanding its coast guard presence—the South China Sea remains a critical flashpoint for major power competition in the Indo-Pacific. Future developments will depend heavily on whether bilateral crisis communication mechanisms can prevent operational friction from escalating into open conflict.
>
Related reading