Connect with us

Regional Issues

Philippines and China Clash Again at Scarborough Shoal

Philippines and China Clash Again at Scarborough Shoal

In the disputed waters of the South China Sea, the longstanding territorial dispute between the Philippines and China has reignited following a new confrontation at the Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines has accused China of engaging in “dangerous maneuvers and obstruction” after the latter reinstated a barrier at the shoal, which China had seized from Manila back in 2012. According to Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesman Jay Tarriela, two Philippine vessels encountered a group of four China Coast Guard (CCG) ships and six maritime militia vessels near the shoal on Monday.

During this encounter, one of the Philippine ships was reportedly hit by water cannon from a CCG ship approximately 12 nautical miles from the shoal. Another PCG vessel faced similar aggression, with water cannon targeting it from two CCG ships when it was around 1,000 yards away from the shoal. Tarriela highlighted that the Philippine ship sustained damage to its railing and canopy due to the forceful water pressure used by the China Coast Guard.

China’s Response and International Law

In response to these events, Beijing claimed to have “expelled” Philippine vessels from the area and reinstated a barrier across the entrance to the shoal. The Philippines views Scarborough Shoal, known locally as Bajo de Masinloc, as part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which extends 200 nautical miles from a country’s coast. China’s installation of the barrier last year was deemed a breach of international maritime law by the Philippines, leading to its removal in September.

Historical Context and International Tribunal’s Ruling

This latest incident adds to a series of confrontations between the two nations over the South China Sea, where China’s expansive territorial claims have been disputed by neighboring countries and rejected by an international tribunal in 2016. Despite the tribunal’s ruling, China has persisted in asserting its claims over the region, which is also contested by Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Philippine Coast Guard’s Decisive Action

In previous months, the Philippine coast guard took decisive action by removing a “floating barrier” installed by China in the disputed Scarborough Shoal area of the South China Sea. This move, directed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, was aimed at upholding international law and safeguarding navigation in the region, which had been hindered by the barrier. Images shared by Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela depicted personnel cutting the barrier’s cable and removing its anchor, underscoring Manila’s firm stance on protecting its maritime interests.

Sovereignty and International Dispute

Tensions between the Philippines and China persist over territorial disputes in the South China Sea, where Beijing claims a vast maritime domain that overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of neighboring countries. The Philippines maintains that Scarborough Shoal falls within its 200-nautical-mile EEZ, as defined by international maritime law and affirmed by a ruling from The Hague’s International Court of Arbitration. In contrast, China asserts sovereignty over the area, referring to it as Huangyan Island.

Implications of Recent Confrontation

The removal of the barrier reflected Manila’s determination to assert its sovereignty and protect the rights of Filipino fishermen, who faced challenges accessing traditional fishing grounds since China seized control of Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Despite ongoing tensions and China’s expansive claims in the region, the Philippine government remains committed to protect its maritime interests in the South China Sea.

Stakes and Geopolitical Dynamics

The Scarborough Shoal, situated in the South China Sea, holds significant geopolitical importance due to its strategic location and rich marine resources. Named after a British ship that grounded on the atoll centuries ago, the shoal has become synonymous with regional power struggles and disputes over sovereignty and fishing rights.

Despite a landmark ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2016, which favored the Philippines on certain aspects and invalidated China’s claims over most of the South China Sea, Beijing has continued to exert control over Scarborough Shoal. The area remains a focal point for diplomatic tensions and maritime disputes among multiple claimant states.

Recent Developments and Diplomatic Efforts

Recent developments at Scarborough Shoal highlight the challenges of regional dynamics. In response to improved relations and diplomatic overtures by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, China had eased restrictions on Filipino fishing activities around the shoal. However, the reinstallation of a barrier by China and subsequent confrontations highlights ongoing challenges in asserting maritime rights and upholding international law.

Despite diplomatic efforts to manage tensions, including efforts to enhance communication and cooperation between the Philippines and China, the Scarborough Shoal dispute remains a contentious issue. The Philippines’ determination to protect its sovereignty and safeguard the rights of Filipino fishermen reflects broader regional concerns over China’s maritime assertiveness and expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Strategic Implications and Military Concerns

The Scarborough Shoal dispute carries significant strategic implications for the region. China’s increasing presence and activities near the shoal, including the deployment of coastguard and fishing vessels, raise concerns about Beijing’s long-term intentions and potential plans for further development, similar to artificial island-building activities in other parts of the South China Sea.

The standoff at Scarborough Shoal signifies the challenges faced by smaller claimant states like the Philippines in asserting their maritime rights against China’s growing military and economic influence. Efforts to strengthen defense ties with allies such as the United States and Japan highlight the broader security implications of maritime disputes in the South China Sea.

Economic Impact and Regional Stability

Beyond security concerns, the Scarborough Shoal dispute also has economic ramifications. Tensions between the Philippines and China threaten vital sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and trade, impacting bilateral relations and regional stability. Business communities in the Philippines have expressed concerns about trade disruptions and investment uncertainties because of tensions in the South China Sea.

Future Prospects and Diplomatic Engagement

The Scarborough Shoal dispute serves as a microcosm of broader geopolitical dynamics and regional power struggles in the Asia-Pacific region. As tensions persist, the international community will continue to monitor developments and advocate for peaceful resolutions to maritime disputes that respect the rights and interests of all parties involved.


What happens if China, Russia and North Korea join forces against the US Indo-Pacific allies?

The solidarity displayed by China, Russia, and North Korea in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses significant risks to the strategic interests of the United States and its allies. China and North Korea supported Russia’s actions by providing crucial economic and military assistance, with Beijing increasing bilateral trade to offset international sanctions against Russia and Pyongyang supplying artillery ammunition and missiles to aid Russia’s military operations in Ukraine. This alignment reflects a growing convergence of interests among these authoritarian nations, challenging the stability and security of the international community. Let us explore, what happens if China, Russia and North Korea join forces against the United States in the Indo pacific region?

1. Military Collaboration and Exercises:

China and Russia have been increasingly demonstrating their military cooperation through joint exercises in recent years. One significant example is the Northern Interaction 2023 exercise conducted in July 2023, where China and Russia collaborated in a four-day maritime and airpower drill in the East China Sea (also known as the Sea of Japan). This exercise depicted the commitment of both nations to strengthen naval cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The proposal for three-way naval exercises involving Russia, North Korea, and China in the Indo-Pacific was revealed by South Korea’s National Intelligence Service. The offer was allegedly made by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu during his meeting with North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un in July 2023. While North Korea’s acceptance of this proposal remains uncertain, if realized, it would mark North Korea’s large-scale drills since the Korean War in the 1950s.

Observers view the potential risks to neighboring states from these joint naval exercises as minimal. Rather than preparations for war, such exercises are seen more as diplomatic gestures and strategic posturing. This proposed collaboration represents a convergence of interests among states, particularly North Korea and Russia, which are facing increasingly limited international alliances. The implications of these naval exercises could extend further towards establishing a formal united front against the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

The joint naval exercises among Russia, North Korea, and China could represent a substantial shift in regional military dynamics. These exercises, if realized, would not only demonstrate a show of unity but also potentially enhance collective military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. While North Korea’s naval capabilities historically have been limited, the inclusion of such exercises could indicate a strategic alignment aimed at countering U.S. and allied presence and influence in the region.

2. Geopolitical Counterbalance:

The Chinese, Russian, and North Korean alliance would likely emerge as a strategic counterbalance to U.S. led security arrangements in the Indo-Pacific, such as the trilateral defence alliance between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. This collective alignment reflects broader geopolitical competition and realignments in the region.

By forming a united front, China, Russia, and North Korea could challenge and undermine U.S. initiatives and policies, reshaping regional power dynamics and influencing the behaviour of other regional actors.

3. Impact on Regional Stability:

The establishment of such an alliance could introduce complexities and uncertainties to the Indo-Pacific security landscape. This collaboration could inadvertently escalate tensions or prompt other regional actors to take sides, potentially leading to heightened instability.

It may also compel neighbouring countries to reassess their strategic positions and alignments, causing a ripple effect across the broader Asia-Pacific region.

4. Diplomatic and Strategic Significance:

Beyond military exercises, this alliance would carry significant diplomatic and strategic implications. It signifies a convergence of interests among China, Russia, and North Korea, potentially influencing global perceptions and strategic calculations.

The alliance’s formation would send a strong message to the international community about shifting power dynamics and strategic alignments in the Indo-Pacific.

5. Challenges to U.S. Indo-Pacific Policy:

A unified front comprising China, Russia, and North Korea would pose substantial challenges to U.S. interests and policies in the region. It could compel the U.S. and its allies to recalibrate their strategic approach, alliances, and partnerships to effectively respond to this evolving security environment.

This development could impact various aspects of U.S. Indo-Pacific policy, including security cooperation, trade agreements, diplomatic engagements, and regional influence.

6. Potential for Expanded Cooperation:

Over time, the alliance may evolve beyond military exercises to encompass broader cooperation across diplomatic, economic, and technological domains. This expanded collaboration would further reshape power dynamics, impacting not only regional stability but also global geopolitical balance.

In essence, a China-Russia-North Korea alliance against U.S. Indo-Pacific policy would represent a significant geopolitical development with far-reaching implications. It would necessitate strategic recalibrations from all affected stakeholders to navigate and respond effectively to the evolving dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region. The outcomes of such an alliance would shape the trajectory of regional security and global power dynamics for the foreseeable future.

Continue Reading


What is the Strategic Message Behind US Missile Deployment in the Balikatan?

On April 11, 2024, the United States made a calculated move that likely unsettled Beijing. The US deployed a potent land-attack missile system, the Mid-Range Capability (MRC) launcher, to the Philippines. This is the first potential deployment of missiles with such a range since the expiration of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. While framed as a military exercise, this move carries deep strategic implications as tensions in the South China Sea continue to simmer.

Understanding the Weapons


The MRC system, with its ability to strike targets up to 1,600 kilometers away, puts vital Chinese installations within range.

Typhon System

Flexible and potent, the Typhon can be armed with anti-ship SM-6 missiles or land-attack Tomahawks, making it a major threat to China’s naval and land-based assets in the region1.

The South China Sea: A Contested Flashpoint

China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the South China Sea, including the building of artificial islands and militarization, has long alarmed its neighbors and the U.S. The deployment of US missiles comes amid repeated incidents between Chinese vessels and those of the Philippines and other regional nations.

Strategic Implications

Shifting Balance

This deployment marks a significant change in the Indo-Pacific’s power balance. By positioning offensive capabilities close to China’s doorstep, the US seeks to deter aggression and reassure allies like the Philippines.

Calculated Risk

While a bold move, it’s not without risks. China may perceive this as a major escalation, potentially leading to heightened tensions and even retaliatory actions.

China’s Response and Regional Concerns

China’s condemnation of the deployment on April 19, 2024, labeling it a destabilizing act, reflects Beijing’s displeasure and concerns about its ability to project power unchallenged. Regional states like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, all with claims in the South China Sea, will be watching closely.

Analyst’s Perspective: Deterrence vs. Provocation

Expert opinions are indeed divided on the deployment of the US Mid-Range Capability (MRC) launcher to the Philippines. The crux of the debate lies in the dichotomy of deterrence versus provocation.


Some analysts see this move as a necessary step to counterbalance Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. They argue that the deployment of the MRC system enhances the deterrence capabilities of the US and its allies in the region. As Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts it, “Chinese missiles would threaten the US [naval] bases in the western Pacific. The United States needs a similar capability so it can strike Chinese bases without risking ships or aircraft.”


On the other hand, some experts warn that this move could fuel a dangerous arms race in the region. They argue that the deployment of such a potent missile system could be perceived as a major escalation by China, potentially leading to heightened tensions and even retaliatory actions. Joseph Matthews, a senior professor at the BELTEI International University in Phnom Penh, warned that “allowing the US army to deploy missiles in the Philippines posed a serious threat and danger to the peace and stability in the region. It would not help resolve any regional dispute, but exacerbate the lingering tensions in the South China Sea.”

Balancing Act

The deployment of the MRC system in the Philippines represents a delicate balancing act between deterrence and provocation. While it aims to counterbalance Chinese assertiveness in the region, it also runs the risk of escalating tensions and potentially sparking an arms race. As Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, puts it, “Allies may be open to rotational deployments in crises, but this is very much dependent on future political dynamics.”

Economic Ripples

China has a history of using economic levers as a form of retaliation in response to geopolitical tensions. In the past, China has imposed bans on agricultural products, particularly bananas, from the Philippines. This had significant implications for the Philippine economy, given that China is one of its largest trading partners.

In addition to trade restrictions, China has also discouraged its citizens from visiting the Philippines citing “security concerns”. This has potential implications for the tourism industry in the Philippines, which relies heavily on Chinese tourists.

The deployment of the US missile system could potentially trigger similar economic retaliations from China. While the immediate impact might be mitigated by the temporary nature of the deployment, the long-term economic implications could be significant. The uncertainty surrounding China’s potential response adds another layer of complexity to the already tense geopolitical situation.


The US missile deployment in the Philippines is a high-stakes gamble. It signals resolve but risks ratcheting up tensions. The long-term consequences are yet unknown— will it lead to greater stability or set the stage for more dangerous confrontations in a hotly contested region?

As Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, puts it, “Allies may be open to rotational deployments in crises, but this is very much dependent on future political dynamics.”

Continue Reading


Philippines denied China’s claims of an agreement regarding tensions at Second Thomas Shoal in SCS

Philippines denied China's claims of an agreement regarding tensions at Second Thomas Shoal in SCS

The Philippines has vehemently refuted claims made by China suggesting that the two countries had reached an agreement to manage tensions at the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, dismissing these assertions as mere propaganda. A spokesperson from China’s embassy in Manila had recently stated that the nations had agreed on a “new model” for handling tensions at the shoal earlier this year, but Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro promptly rebutted this, emphasizing that his department had no knowledge of such an agreement since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assumed office in 2022.

Teodoro highlighted the Philippines’ strong commitment to protecting its claims in the waterway, particularly given that the submerged reef falls within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, but is also claimed by China. Tensions in the South China sea between China and the Philippines have escalated, with the Philippines accusing China of obstructing maneuvers and firing water cannons at Filipino vessels during supply missions to soldiers stationed in the area.

The South China Sea, a critical artery for global trade with over $3 trillion in annual ship commerce, has become a focal point of contention due to China’s expansive territorial claims that overlap with those of the Philippines and neighboring nations. Despite a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague that invalidated China’s claims, Beijing continues to assert control over vast areas of the South China sea.

Teodoro dismissed China’s assertion of a bilateral agreement as part of Chinese propaganda, stressing Manila’s steadfast commitment to defending its territorial integrity and maritime rights. He condemned what he described as falsehoods propagated by unnamed or unidentified Chinese officials, reaffirming that the Philippines would never compromise its claims in the waterway.

The denial by the Philippines reflects broader shifts in regional alliances, with Manila increasingly aligning itself with the United States after years of close ties with China during the Duterte administration. This strategic realignment pinpoints geopolitical considerations due to escalating maritime disputes and great power rivalries in the Asia-Pacific region.

For instance, during a press conference, Teodoro emphasized, “The Philippines stands firm in upholding our sovereignty and territorial rights in the South China Sea. We have not engaged in any agreement with China that compromises our claims, and any suggestion otherwise is simply not accurate.”

The South China Sea remains a significant geopolitical flashpoint, highlighting the difficulties of managing overlapping territorial claims and safeguarding freedom of navigation. The Philippines’ rejection of China’s alleged agreement reflects Manila’s determination to defend its sovereignty and maritime rights from Beijing’s assertive actions.

In a recent diplomatic forum, Foreign Affairs Secretary Maria Domingo remarked, “The Philippines reiterates its commitment to the principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Our stance is grounded on legal frameworks that protect our maritime entitlements.”

The rejection of any purported agreement with China signals Manila’s commitment to international law and adherence to the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which deemed China’s claims in the South China Sea to have no legal basis. This legal framework forms the basis of the Philippines’ stance in defending its maritime claims.

Moreover, in response to media inquiries, Presidential Spokesperson Andrea Lopez affirmed, “The Philippines values constructive dialogue with all nations, including China. However, we will not compromise our sovereignty or relinquish our rights over our maritime territories.”

The South China Sea dispute serves as a microcosm of broader geopolitical tensions in the Asia-Pacific, where competing interests and strategic considerations converge. The Philippines’ firm stance against China’s claims reflects Manila’s determination to safeguard its national interests and maritime sovereignty.

In essence, the Philippines’ denial of any agreement with China over the Second Thomas Shoal signifies Manila’s commitment to defending its territorial integrity and maritime rights because of escalating tensions in the South China Sea. This stance highlights the broader dynamics of regional geopolitics and reflects Manila’s efforts to navigate complex maritime disputes while upholding international law and regional stability. The Philippines remains open to diplomatic resolutions, but remains steadfast in protecting its sovereign rights in accordance with international norms and legal frameworks.

Continue Reading