Geo-Politics

Can Taiwan Fight China?

A Brief

In a groundbreaking turn of events, the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election has resulted in the victory of William Lai Ching-te, securing a historic third consecutive term for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Lai’s compelling win, commanding 40.1% of the vote, demonstrates a substantial mandate. The electoral landscape was dominated by the overarching theme of managing relations with China, underscoring the challenges associated with the ongoing Taiwan Strait tensions. As a seasoned politician and former doctor, William Lai will have to confront the difficult task of navigating the complex superpower rivalry, given China’s persistent territorial claims over Taiwan. Lai’s victory serves as a resounding endorsement of the Taiwanese people’s commitment to democracy, echoing the sentiments of outgoing President Tsai Ing-wen.

The question which we are going to discuss is, whether Taiwan can fight China, is indeed a complex interplay of historical, geopolitical, and military factors. China, led by President Xi Jinping, asserts that the “reunification with Taiwan must be fulfilled.” However, Taiwan, distinct from the Chinese mainland with its own constitution and democratically elected leaders, stands in East Asia as a key player in the “first island chain,” crucial to U.S. foreign policy. The historical roots of the conflict are embedded in Mao Zedong’s communist struggle, with Taiwan’s control shifting between dynasties and nations. Presently, as China seeks to extend beyond the first island chain, Taiwan’s strategic importance is evident, leading to military challenges. Despite Taiwan’s defense capabilities being dwarfed by China, its adoption of “asymmetric warfare” aims to counterbalance the stark military imbalance. While international support for Taiwan grows, diplomatic challenges persist, and economic interdependence, especially in semiconductor production, adds complexity. Let us get into the detail of our question.

Historical Perspective

Taiwan’s story stretches back thousands of years, with indigenous people inhabiting the island for over 6,000 years. Europeans, like the Portuguese and Spanish, began arriving in the 16th century, followed by the Dutch who established a colony in the 17th century. The island first came under full Chinese control in the late 17th century when the Qing dynasty began administering it. Then, in 1895, they gave up the island to Japan after losing the first Sino Japanese war. China took the island again in 1945 after Japan lost World War Two. But a civil war erupted in mainland China between nationalist government forces led by Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s Communist Party. “Strategically, with control over Taiwan, China will be able to push beyond the “first island chain, a string of countries that have security agreements with the U.S., including Japan and the Philippines, and into the Pacific.” China could then, in theory, avoid the radar and ships of the U.S. military and their allies. The first island chain provides a ring of defense for the U.S. and its allies. If China has control over Taiwan, that would open up the Western Pacific to Chinese military assets.

Taiwan’s Defense Capabilities: Unmatched to the Military strength of China

Taiwan’s defense capabilities stands in stark contrast to the formidable military strength of China, particularly in the realm of air power. According to Global Firepower, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) boasts an overwhelming advantage, with more than 3,000 military aircraft and nearly 400,000 personnel in its air force. In comparison, Taiwan fields just over 700 military aircraft and approximately 30,000 soldiers in its air force. The significant numerical gap is compounded by China’s status as the world’s largest standing army, with 2 million members and superior air, naval, and firepower capabilities.

Despite the glaring disparities, Taiwan’s strategic approach to counter the threat from China revolves around leveraging asymmetric warfare tactics. The island nation, with a population of 23 million and a military force of 169,000 active service personnel, recognizes its relative vulnerability. Taiwan’s preparedness hinges on its ability to neutralize the gaping asymmetry in air power through the strategic deployment of anti-aircraft missiles. While the PLA may have numerical superiority, Taiwan aims to make any military assault exceptionally challenging, costly, and politically unfavorable for China. This involves deploying mobile, highly-trained forces, leveraging technological advancements like anti-ship missiles, and utilizing the island’s mountainous terrain to inflict heavy casualties on a larger attacker. Taiwan’s dense urban areas and fortified coastlines can create substantial logistical and tactical challenges for an invading force.

The concept of asymmetric warfare adopted by contemporary Taiwan involves unconventional strategies, drawing inspiration from historical precedents where smaller forces successfully resisted superior powers. Such tactics include guerrilla warfare, disrupting supply chains, exploiting weather and terrain, and avoiding direct confrontations. In the face of an existential threat just 180km across the Taiwan Strait. By making an invasion financially and politically untenable, Taiwan aims to dissuade the PLA from pursuing military aggression, emphasizing the complex nature of modern defense strategies beyond numerical parity in military assets. Additionally, Taiwan benefits from potentially supportive international actors, who might impose economic sanctions or offer military assistance.

Moreover, Taipei recently announced an extension to mandatory military service periods from four months to a year and accelerated the development of its indigenous weapons program to boost its combat readiness. But analysts say a recent announcement – one that has perhaps gone less remarked upon in the global media – could prove a game-changer: talks between Taipei and the United States to establish a “contingency stockpile” of munitions on Taiwan’s soil.

However, in 2023, China’s defense budget was $230 billion, more than 13 times the size of Taiwan’s spending of $16.89 billion. So, instead of matching ship for ship or plane for plane, Taiwan should embrace an asymmetric warfare model focused on the procurement of smaller weapons – such as portable missiles and mines – that are hard to detect but effective in halting enemy advances.

Another question that arises is how many weapons or missiles Taiwan would need to defend itself against China. Experts said providing a concrete number is difficult because the possible combat scenarios were so varied. In an all-out war, China could fire long-range missiles to destroy Taiwanese infrastructure and military targets before attempting to send its ground troops across the Taiwan Strait.

China’s military power and strategies

China’s military power and strategies are intrinsically tied to safeguarding its sovereignty, security, and development interests while asserting a more significant global role. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) adheres to a defense policy oriented towards active defense, emphasizing the imperative of fortifying the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a “world-class” military. This commitment is integral to China’s broader strategy aimed at rejuvenating the PRC into a “great modern socialist country” by the culmination of 2049.

Central to China’s military doctrine is the concept of active defense, indicating a strategic approach focused on protecting its interests and responding to perceived threats rather than pursuing aggressive expansion. The PRC’s leadership underscores the need to bolster the PLA as a cornerstone of this strategy, aiming for global recognition of its military prowess. By aspiring to become a “world-class” military force, China seeks to project strength and influence not only within its immediate region but on the global stage.

China’s emphasis on military modernization aligns with its broader national rejuvenation goals, reflecting aspirations for comprehensive economic, technological, and military advancements. The development of a formidable military is seen as essential to achieving great power status and ensuring the PRC’s influence in global affairs. As China continues to assert its strategic interests, the evolution of its military power and strategies will significantly impact regional and international dynamics, contributing to the ongoing geopolitical shifts in the 21st century.

Support of Taiwan in the Diplomatic Arena

In 2021, international support for Taiwan rose to its highest level since 1971, when Taipei lost its seat at the United Nations to the People’s Republic of China. The United States has been the most prominent major supporter of Taiwan since then, even though it does not formally recognize the island nation as an independent country. Currently, only 15 countries or territories recognize Taiwan and use its preferred name, the Republic of China. These are mostly small countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean or the South Pacific that rely on Taipei for economic assistance.

One of the greatest dangers to international security today is the possibility of a military confrontation between China and Taiwan that leads to a war between China and the United States. Neither Beijing nor Taipei wants a war, but both sides have adopted policies that run an unacceptably high risk of bloodshed over the upcoming years.

Economic Considerations

A military conflict over Taiwan would set the global economy back decades because of the crippling disruption to the supply chain of crucial semiconductors, according to the head of one of the island’s leading makers of microchips. Taiwan makes the world’s most advanced microchips — the brains inside every piece of technology from smartphones and modern cars to artificial intelligence and fighter jets. The island is a microchip fabrication hotbed, producing 60% of the world’s semiconductors — and around 93% of the most advanced ones, according to a 2021 report from the Boston Consulting Group. The U.S., South Korea and China also produce semiconductors, but Taiwan dominates the market, which was worth almost $600 billion last year. Likewise, it is important to note that Taiwan is the world’s 16th largest trading economy, having imported and exported $922 billion in goods and services in 2021 alone.

In recent months, growing tensions in the Taiwan Strait as well as the rapid and coordinated Group of Seven (G7) economic response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have raised questions—in G7 capitals and in Beijing alike—over whether similar measures could be imposed on China in a Taiwan crisis. Large-scale sanctions on China would entail massive global costs. As the world’s second-biggest economy—ten times the size of Russia—and the world’s largest trader, China has deep global economic ties that make full-scale sanctions highly costly for all parties. In a maximalist scenario involving sanctions on the largest institutions in China’s banking system, we estimate that at least $3 trillion in trade and financial flows, not including foreign reserve assets, would be put at immediate risk of disruption. This is nearly equivalent to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 2022. Impacts of this scale makes it politically difficult outside of an invasion of Taiwan or wartime scenario.

Deterrence through economic statecraft cannot do the job alone. Economic countermeasures are complementary to, rather than a replacement for, military and diplomatic tools to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Overreliance on economic countermeasures or overconfidence in their short-term impact could lead to policy missteps. Such tools also run the risk of becoming gradually less effective over time as China scales up alternative currency and financial settlement systems.

A Public Perspective

Outside Taiwan, a spring 2023 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that Taiwan enjoys generally favorable perceptions in 24 high and middle income countries. Across these nations, a median of 48% of respondents holds a favorable view of Taiwan, while only a median of 28% express an unfavorable opinion. Among the surveyed countries, Japan stands out as having the most positive attitudes towards Taiwan, with an impressive 82% expressing a favorable view. Additionally, substantial support is observed in South Korea, where about three-quarters of respondents view Taiwan favorably, and in Australia, where seven-in-ten share the same sentiment.

Inside Taiwan, as per survey of Mainland Affairs Council, 76.6% public believe that the Chinese authorities are unfriendly toward the ROC government and the ROC people. As much as 90% of the public disapprove the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one country, two systems” proposal, oppose the CCP’s military intimidation of Taiwan (90.5%), and disagree with the CCP’s diplomatic suppression towards Taiwan (91.5%). The numbers indicate that Taiwanese mainstream opinion opposes China’s negative actions against Taiwan.

Factors Influencing the Likelihood of Conflict and Future Scenarios

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that China is preparing for an imminent war with the United States in an effort to reunify with Taiwan by force. Chinese President Xi Jinping has instructed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be ready for war by 2027, though CIA Director William Burns has said that such military planning does not mean that China will launch a war by then. Burns added that China may harbor doubts about whether it has the capability to execute the largest amphibious assault, since the D-Day landing in World War II. Nevertheless, during the past years, several top U.S. military officials have assessed that China will invade Taiwan by 2025 or by 2027.

According to Xi’s speeches and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) documents, Beijing sees unification with Taiwan as necessary to fulfill Xi’s “China Dream: the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” The CCP seeks to achieve this goal by 2049, on the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China’s founding. Thus, the CCP views Taiwan as an existential issue, much like, as Russian President Vladimir Putin viewed Ukraine issue.

On the flip side, semi-secret strategies on both sides of the Pacific have generally escaped much notice. The US military commitment to Taiwan cannot remain ambiguous, this country’s economic dependence on that island’s computer-chip production is almost absolute. As the epicenter of a global supply chain, Taiwan manufactures 90 percent of the world’s advanced chips and 65 percent of all semiconductors

Taiwan China Conflict: A Final Straw before a World War III

There are enough conflicts brewing all around the globe already and the catastrophic ramifications of such a confrontation would indeed be the final straw. Taiwan stands out with its geographical importance, but also with its political ambiguity: it is de jure Chinese territory according to the so-called “One China” policy of China’s ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Chinese government claims sovereignty over Taiwan as an “inalienable part of China.”

Amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, political uncertainty in Europe and Africa, emerging challenges in Asia, economic turmoil around the globe and while Israeli forces are moving into Gaza, now there exist likely chances that the Chinese and the Americans will be fighting in the Pacific, despite being the fact that both nations are laced with nuclear armament. Chinese and American leaders are realizing that any conflict over Taiwan would perhaps be the final straw before a World War III.

Final thoughts on the prospects of Taiwan resisting China

The election of President William Lai, marked by a historic third term for the Democratic Progressive Party, underscores Taiwan’s commitment to democracy and resistance against external pressures, especially from China. Taiwan’s defense capabilities, while dwarfed by China’s formidable military strength, adopt an asymmetric warfare model to counterbalance the numerical disparity. The island nation’s strategic approach involves leveraging anti-aircraft missiles, guerrilla tactics, and exploiting its mountainous terrain to make any military assault challenging and politically unfavorable for China. Recent initiatives, such as extending mandatory military service and talks with the United States for a munitions stockpile, demonstrate Taiwan’s commitment to bolstering its defense readiness.

The international arena plays a crucial role, with growing support for Taiwan evident in favorable perceptions globally. However, diplomatic challenges persist, as Taiwan’s recognition as an independent state remains limited, and its access to international organizations is constrained. Taiwan’s dominance in semiconductor production makes it a key player in the global supply chain. A military conflict could have severe economic repercussions, disrupting the semiconductor market and setting the global economy back decades.

The likelihood of conflict is influenced by factors such as China’s strategic goals, the U.S. commitment to Taiwan, and the potential catastrophic consequences of a confrontation in the Pacific. The stakes are high, with many experts warning that a conflict over Taiwan could be a catalyst for a broader world war.

In essence, “Can Taiwan Fight China?” involves a multifaceted analysis of historical, geopolitical, military, economic, and public opinion factors. Taiwan’s strategic resilience, coupled with international support, economic significance, and the broader global context, shapes the complex dynamics surrounding the island’s ability to navigate the challenges posed by an assertive China.

Analysis

How the US Military Revive Naval Base in Subic Bay to Defend the Philippines from Chinese Invasion?

In the spring of 1975, as the Vietnam War came to a dramatic end, thousands of South Vietnamese fled their homeland, seeking safety and a new beginning. Among the chaos, Subic Bay became a sanctuary, with Grande Island serving as a temporary refuge for those escaping the fall of Saigon. For weeks, U.S. military personnel worked tirelessly to provide shelter, food, and medical care for the refugees before arranging their transfer to Guam. This pivotal moment in history exemplified Subic Bay’s capacity to address humanitarian crises while maintaining its role as a strategic military outpost.

This story is just one chapter in the rich and complex history of Subic Bay, a location that has played a significant role in shaping regional and global dynamics. During the Cold War, the Subic Bay Naval Base was a cornerstone of U.S. military strategy in Southeast Asia, protecting vital trade routes and supporting the Containment Strategy against communism. From the Vietnam War—where it served as a logistics storehouse and repair facility—to its role in humanitarian missions and post-war recovery efforts, Subic Bay proved indispensable. Its infrastructure, built to sustain aircraft carriers, submarines, and supply ships, symbolized readiness for both combat and compassion.

Yet, the closure of the base in 1992 marked a turning point, sending shockwaves through the local economy. For Olongapo City, just across the river, the end of the U.S. presence meant the loss of jobs and economic activity that had sustained the community for decades. Despite the immediate challenges, the establishment of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone heralded a new era of resilience, transforming the area into a hub for trade, tourism, and investment.

Subic Bay was more than a military installation—it was a cultural crossroads where sailors, Marines, and local residents had built connections that spanned continents and generations. The lively nightlife of Olongapo City, the legendary gatherings at Cubi Point Officers’ Club, and the enduring bonds formed at George Dewey High School all contribute to a shared history that continues to resonate. Today, remnants of this era remain alongside modern developments, offering a glimpse into the bay’s storied past and its evolving identity.

As Subic Bay steers its future, its strategic location, historical significance, and ongoing transformation make it a compelling subject for exploration. From its roots as a military stronghold to its current role as a commercial hub and its potential as a model for sustainable development, Subic Bay stands as a testament to resilience, adaptation, and the enduring connections between its past and future.

Table of Contents

Toggle

Subic Bay’s Historical Role

Subic Bay’s history as a significant maritime location date back to its recognition by Spanish conquistador Juan de Salcedo in 1542. Known for its deep and sheltered waters, the bay became an essential stop for early shipping. The name “Subic” is derived from the native term hubek, meaning “head of a plow,” reflecting the bay’s prominence in local culture. This natural harbor set the stage for Subic Bay’s future as a pivotal naval site, recognized for its unmatched geographic advantages.During the Spanish colonial period, Subic Bay gained prominence as a strategic naval base. In 1884, King Alfonso XII of Spain designated the bay as a naval port, leading to the construction of the Arsenal de Olongapo. The Spanish Gate, built in 1885, became a defining landmark of this period and remains a historic relic. Spain’s military foresight transformed Subic Bay into a critical asset for defending its Pacific territories, marking the beginning of its role in regional security. Following Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-American War of 1898, Subic Bay came under American control. Recognizing its potential, Admiral George Dewey advocated for its development as a naval facility. By 1899, the U.S. Navy officially occupied Subic Bay, establishing it as a significant outpost. Over the next decades, the Americans expanded the base, laying the groundwork for its transformation into one of the most critical military installations in the world.

Subic Bay’s importance grew during World War II, serving as a repair and supply depot for the U.S. Navy. However, it became a battleground when Japanese forces attacked in December 1941, leading to its temporary occupation. Liberated by U.S. forces in 1945, the bay’s role expanded during the post-war era with the construction of the Cubi Point Air Station by the Seabees. This engineering marvel solidified Subic Bay’s position as a cornerstone of American military logistics in the Pacific.

During the Cold War, Subic Bay emerged as the largest overseas military installation of the United States Armed Forces. Its Naval Supply Depot handled more fuel oil than any other navy facility globally, underscoring its logistical significance. The base became even more critical during the Vietnam War, supporting U.S. military operations with its Naval Air Station at Cubi Point serving as a hub for aircraft logistics. This period cemented Subic Bay’s status as a linchpin in U.S. military strategy.

Subic Bay remained a key military base until its closure in 1992, following the combined impacts of the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the Philippines’ decision to end the U.S. lease agreement. The base’s transition into the Subic Bay Freeport Zone marked a new chapter, transforming it into a thriving industrial and commercial area. Today, Subic Bay continues to play a role in regional security, occasionally hosting U.S. Navy ships, while serving as a symbol of resilience and adaptive reuse.

Closure of the US Naval Base

The closure of the U.S. Naval Base at Subic Bay in 1992 marked the end of nearly a century of American military presence in the Philippines, driven by both political and economic factors. Filipino nationalism had grown steadily over the decades, culminating in the Philippine Senate’s decision on September 13, 1991, to reject a lease extension for the base. This decision reflected a broader shift in priorities following the end of the Cold War, which reduced the strategic necessity of maintaining such a massive overseas installation. Additionally, the catastrophic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 dealt a severe blow to Subic Bay, causing significant damage to infrastructure and forcing the evacuation of nearby Clark Air Base. Combined, these factors set the stage for the base’s eventual closure, which was finalized on November 24, 1992.

The closure had an immediate and profound impact on the local economy and community. Subic Bay had been a cornerstone of regional economic activity, employing over 5,800 military personnel, 600 civilians, and 6,000 dependents who all relocated following the base’s decommissioning. Local businesses, which had thrived on the patronage of base personnel and their families, experienced a sharp downturn, leading to widespread job losses and a significant economic contraction. The sudden withdrawal of such a substantial source of income posed a daunting challenge for the surrounding communities, leaving many grappling with uncertainty about the future.

Despite these setbacks, the region demonstrated remarkable resilience in adapting to the post-base reality. The Philippine government established the Subic Bay Freeport Zone to revitalize the area by transforming it into a hub for trade, commerce, and industry. This initiative leveraged the existing infrastructure of the former naval base, repurposing its facilities for civilian and economic uses. Over time, the Freeport Zone became a symbol of successful economic redevelopment, attracting businesses and creating new opportunities for the community. The transformation of Subic Bay underscored the potential for adaptive reuse, turning a moment of crisis into a foundation for future growth.

Economic Recovery and Development

The transformation of Subic Bay from a former U.S. Naval Base into the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) stands as a testament to adaptive reuse and economic resilience. Spearheaded by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), the Freeport has evolved into a dynamic economic growth center since its establishment in 1992. Leveraging the robust infrastructure inherited from the U.S. Navy, SBFZ has attracted over $2.3 billion in investments and created more than 55,000 jobs, illustrating the potential of such redevelopment efforts. Major global companies like FedEx, Acer, and Hitachi have established operations within the Freeport, enhancing its status as a hub for foreign and local investment. Even amidst challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, SBMA reported P3.2 billion in operating revenue and secured 69 new investments in 2020, showcasing the zone’s resilience and growth potential.

Tourism has emerged as a significant pillar of Subic Bay’s post-closure economy, with efforts to promote sustainable and eco-friendly practices gaining traction. Events like the Subic Bay Tourism Summit emphasize the importance of sustainability, as highlighted by Dr. Richard Daenos of the Department of Tourism in Central Luzon, who stated, “Sustainability is everyone’s responsibility.” The impact of these initiatives is evident, with Subic Bay recording 7.3 million same-day visitors in 2021, a 42% increase from the previous year. In addition to tourism, commercial and residential development projects are transforming the region’s landscape. The Subic Bay Gateway Park (SBGP) is undergoing redevelopment into a mixed-use commercial complex, blending residential, civic, and park-like facilities with commercial spaces. This initiative aims to cater to both local and international markets, further solidifying Subic Bay’s economic significance.

Subic Bay’s post-closure evolution includes inspiring success stories and innovative developments. The Freeport has hosted sports tourism events such as the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League, showcasing its capability to attract diverse industries. Strict health and safety protocols have been key to maintaining the confidence of visitors and businesses alike, particularly during the pandemic. However, challenges remain, especially in aligning the Freeport’s industrial activities with environmental sustainability goals. Achieving carbon neutrality within the SBMA industrial zone is a top priority, as underscored by Amethya Dela Llana of the SBMA Regulatory Group, who urged, “Let’s make this a way of life.” The SBMA is actively pioneering carbon reduction strategies, positioning Subic Bay as a testbed for achieving widespread environmental sustainability. Balancing economic growth with ecological stewardship remains an ongoing endeavor, but Subic Bay’s progress offers a model of resilience and reinvention for similar post-military base transitions.

U S Funded Port in Batanes The Bold Move to Counter China

Subic Bay’s Future Prospects

Subic Bay’s geographical position and infrastructure position it as a prime candidate for becoming a major hub in global trade and logistics. The bay is envisioned as an alternative port for Hong Kong, serving as a spillover hub to maintain the smooth flow of commerce between the two locations. “Subic Bay Freeport (SBF) can provide support if ever a spillover occurs. We want to be part of their plan to become a global shipping center,” remarked Renato Lee III, SBMA Business and Investment Group Senior Deputy Administrator. The Subic Bay Regional Development Master Plan, crafted with assistance from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), underscores this vision, encompassing 34 proposed projects to boost port capacity, airport functionality, and road connectivity. With nine initiatives focused on the seaport sector and 18 dedicated to air and road transportation, the plan aims to unlock Subic Bay’s full potential, making it an essential node in Asia-Pacific logistics networks.

Infrastructure enhancement forms the backbone of Subic Bay’s future prospects. Supported by the finalized Subic Bay Regional Development Master Plan, projects are designed to expand port capacity and improve connectivity with surrounding regions. The Japanese government’s collaboration underscores the international confidence in Subic’s potential, as Ambassador Kazuhiko Koshikawa handed over the finalized plan to Philippine Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III in Manila. By upgrading facilities and transportation systems, Subic Bay is not only cementing its role as a logistics hub but also aligning itself with global standards for trade efficiency and sustainability. These initiatives promise to bolster the Freeport’s capacity to serve as a key driver of regional economic growth.

A commitment to sustainability underpins Subic Bay’s development strategy, with numerous initiatives in place to protect the environment and promote eco-friendly practices. The Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) has undertaken reforestation efforts, waste management programs, and carbon neutrality initiatives, becoming a testbed for widespread carbon reduction strategies. Dr. Richard Daenos, Regional Director of the Department of Tourism in Central Luzon, emphasized the shared responsibility of sustainability, stating, “Sustainability is everyone’s responsibility.” Beyond environmental protection, the SBFZ is making strides in sustainable tourism, as evidenced by a 42% increase in same-day visitors in 2021. These efforts reflect the region’s commitment to balancing economic growth with ecological preservation, ensuring that Subic Bay remains a model of responsible development.

Subic Bay’s pursuit of sustainable development extends beyond environmental conservation to the adoption of green technologies and eco-friendly practices across industries. The Freeport’s adherence to health and safety protocols during the pandemic, while maintaining its operational momentum, highlights its dedication to long-term resilience. By aligning its projects with global sustainable development goals, Subic Bay aims to attract investments and visitors while minimizing its ecological footprint. These initiatives position the bay as a forward-thinking hub that blends economic opportunity with environmental stewardship.

Subic Bay’s strategic importance transcends commerce, serving as a linchpin for regional security and defense cooperation. Joint military exercises and training programs with international partners underscore its enduring relevance in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Subic Bay’s infrastructure and location make it a natural choice for such collaborations, enhancing its role in regional security dynamics. The Subic Bay Regional Development Master Plan also includes initiatives to boost coast guard capabilities, reinforcing its status as a key player in defense and maritime security.

As Subic Bay continues to evolve, its trajectory reflects a careful balance of historical significance, economic ambition, and environmental responsibility. By leveraging its strategic location, enhancing infrastructure, embracing sustainability, and contributing to regional security, Subic Bay is charting a path toward becoming a multifaceted hub for trade, logistics, and development. These prospects, supported by international partnerships and local initiatives, underscore the enduring potential of this storied location in shaping the future of the region.

How The Philippines’ NEW STANDARD MAP Counter China’s 10-Dash Line Claim?

Personal Stories and Community Perspectives

Subic Bay’s rich history is intricately tied to the lives and memories of those who lived and worked there during its time as a U.S. naval base. For many, it was more than a military facility—it was a vibrant community and a home away from home. Former military personnel and local residents share vivid anecdotes of life around the base. Chris Reed, a young officer aboard the battleship New Jersey in 1968, fondly recalls, “It was a young sailor’s dream come true… terrific music, booze, and girls,” encapsulating the lively social scene of the era. Similarly, retired U.S. Navy officer John Hernandez described Subic Bay as a place where sailors formed lifelong friendships, stating, “Subic Bay was more than a naval base; it was a home away from home for many sailors who spent years stationed here.” At its peak, Subic Bay was bustling with activity, housing 5,800 military personnel, 600 civilians, and 6,000 dependents, creating a microcosm of American military life overseas.

The cultural and historical legacy of the base continues to resonate in Subic Bay today. Landmarks such as the Subic Bay Naval Base Museum preserve the memories of its strategic importance and the role it played in U.S.-Philippine relations. Mayor Rolen Paulino of Olongapo City reflects on this enduring impact, noting, “The closure of Subic Bay Naval Base marked the end of an era, but its impact on the local community and its role in shaping our nation’s history will never be forgotten.” Annual events and festivals celebrating U.S.-Philippine friendship highlight how deeply interwoven this legacy is with the cultural identity of the region.

In the years following the closure of the naval base, the local community has rallied around initiatives aimed at sustainable development and economic renewal. The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) has spearheaded efforts to attract investments, enhance tourism, and improve infrastructure, transforming Subic Bay into a premier destination for both business and leisure. “We are committed to transforming Subic Bay into a premier destination for both business and leisure, while preserving its rich history and natural beauty,” said SBMA Chairman Wilma Eisma. These efforts have borne fruit, with the SBMA reporting P3.2 billion in operating revenue and securing 69 new investments in 2020, even amid the challenges posed by the global pandemic.

The vision for Subic Bay’s future is one of balanced growth that harmonizes economic opportunity with environmental stewardship. Local residents, businesses, and officials see the area as a model for sustainable development in the region. Events like the Subic Bay Tourism Summit highlight the commitment to eco-friendly practices, drawing attention to the bay’s unique appeal as a destination that combines natural beauty with modern amenities. Dr. Richard Daenos, Regional Director of the Department of Tourism in Central Luzon, emphasized the potential of Subic Bay, stating, “Subic Bay has the potential to become a model for sustainable development in the region, balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship.” Visitor statistics underscore this growing appeal: in 2021, Subic Bay Freeport recorded 7.3 million same-day visitors, a remarkable 42% increase from the previous year. This growth reflects the community’s success in crafting a vision for Subic Bay that honors its past while forging a dynamic and sustainable future.

Hong Kong: A City Shaped by Heritage, Innovation, and Resilience

Analysis

How The Philippines’ NEW STANDARD MAP Counter China’s 10-Dash Line Claim?

Recently, the Philippines has taken a decisive step to assert its territorial rights in the South China Sea by preparing to release an updated map that reflects its maritime entitlements in line with the 2016 arbitral ruling and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This new map is a clear response to China’s controversial “10-dash line” map, which claims nearly the entire South China Sea. The updated map will delineate areas such as the Kalayaan Island Group, Scarborough Shoal, Macclesfield Bank, and the Benham Rise—territories that the Philippines has long claimed as its own. Furthermore, the map will define the West Philippine Sea as the country’s 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), separating it from the broader South China Sea, and thereby strengthening the Philippines’ sovereignty over these regions.

This move was prompted by the release of China’s updated “10-dash line” map in 2023, which extended China’s territorial claims even further, overlapping with the EEZs of several Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines. The Philippine government responded swiftly, formally rejecting this new map, which contradicts the 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling that invalidated China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea. The tribunal had affirmed that certain features in the Spratly Islands fall within the Philippine EEZ. Despite this legal victory, China continues its claims in defiance of international law, leading the Philippines to take a firm stance in defense of its sovereignty. The creation of the updated map is part of a broader diplomatic effort to assert the Philippines’ rights, and it will undergo rigorous vetting to ensure it aligns with international law and the arbitral ruling.

An intriguing aspect of the updated map is the inclusion of Sabah, a territory currently under Malaysia’s control but historically linked to the Philippines through the Sultanate of Sulu. This issue dates back to the 15th century when the Sultanate of Sulu came into possession of the region after assisting Brunei in a civil conflict. In 1878, the Sultan of Sulu leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Chartered Company, a lease that the Philippines argues never amounted to a transfer of sovereignty. After the formation of Malaysia in 1963, which included Sabah, the Philippines formally asserted its claim. Although Malaysia considers the issue settled, interpreting the 1878 agreement as a cession, the Philippines continues to lay claim to the region, albeit without actively pursuing it in recent years.

The maritime confrontation in the South China sea is part of a broader pattern of ongoing tension between China and the Philippines over sovereignty in the South China Sea. Scarborough Shoal has long been a flashpoint, and despite the 2016 arbitral ruling, China has maintained a heavy presence in the area, effectively blocking Philippine vessels from accessing this traditional fishing ground. The Philippines has responded by asserting its territorial claims more forcefully, and in recent months, it has enacted two significant pieces of maritime legislation—the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act—aimed at further strengthening its territorial integrity. In response, China has issued threats of “necessary measures” to protect its sovereignty.

The South China Sea dispute remains a complex and multifaceted issue, involving overlapping claims from multiple nations, including China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, and Indonesia. The region is of immense strategic importance, with vital trade routes that handle over $3 trillion in annual commerce. The United States, a longstanding ally of the Philippines, has warned China against aggressive actions, reaffirming its commitment to the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines. Meanwhile, ASEAN nations find themselves caught between maintaining ties with China, an economic powerhouse, and upholding international law in the face of Beijing’s expanding maritime claims. As tensions escalate, the risk of miscalculation grows, and the future of peace and stability in the region remains uncertain. The Philippines, undeterred, is resolutely moving forward in asserting its sovereignty, with its own new map and standing firm in its diplomatic protests against China’s actions.

Table of Contents

Toggle

Historical Philippine Maps

The 1734 Velarde map, one of the earliest representations of the Philippines, offers significant historical insights into the territorial boundaries during the Spanish Empire. This map is a valuable artifact that reveals the territorial scope claimed by the Spanish colonial authorities, providing a snapshot of the Philippines during that period. The map is particularly noteworthy for its depiction of the islands, which showcases the colonial boundaries in a way that highlights the era’s geopolitical landscape. In 2024, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) initiated the “Landas ng Pagkabansa” (Path of Nationhood) project to honor the nation’s history. As part of this initiative, NHCP will install 43 new historical markers across Luzon, intended to commemorate key events and milestones in the journey to Philippine independence. This project is part of the broader 125th Anniversary of Philippine Independence, celebrated from 2023 to 2026.

The “Landas ng Pagkabansa” project is a pivotal effort to highlight the heroism and sacrifices of Filipinos in the fight for independence, tracing the history from the 1898 declaration of independence in Kawit, Cavite, to the end of the First Philippine Republic in 1901 in Palanan, Isabela. The 43 markers will be installed in key provinces such as Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Pangasinan, La Union, Ilocos Sur, Mountain Province, and Ifugao. These markers are not only educational but also serve as reminders of the heroism and sacrifices of local communities and individuals who contributed to the independence movement. Dr. Emmanuel Calairo, NHCP chairperson, emphasized that these markers aim to remind Filipinos of the historical events that shaped their nation and the enduring spirit of their ancestors.

In parallel to this commemoration, the Philippine government is set to release a new map that will reflect the country’s territorial claims, including the West Philippine Sea and Benham Rise, which is now referred to as “Talampas ng Pilipinas.” This updated map, developed by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), will incorporate the maritime zones and features recognized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), along with the 2016 arbitral award. According to NAMRIA Director Peter Tiangco, this map will clearly delineate areas where the Philippines has sovereignty and sovereign rights, providing legal clarity and standing up to international scrutiny. The map will also include the exact coordinates of key maritime features and will be published once the rules for the Philippine Maritime Zones Act are finalized.

The release of this updated map coincides with the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea, particularly in the West Philippine Sea, where the Philippines has faced increasing aggression from China. The Philippine government has filed multiple diplomatic protests against China’s actions, including the incidents of Chinese vessels firing of water cannons at Philippine vessels. As of December 2024, the Philippine government has filed 60 protests against China’s aggressive maritime actions this year alone, bringing the total to 193 protests since the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. These protests highlight the Philippines’ strong opposition to China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, which are largely based on the controversial “New ten-dash line.”

The diplomatic disputes with China have intensified, with China defending its actions as necessary to protect its perceived territorial rights, particularly in the disputed areas such as Scarborough Shoal. In response, the Philippine government has repeatedly condemned these actions, emphasizing that they are illegal under international law, particularly the 1982 UNCLOS. Despite these tensions, the Philippines remains resolute in defending its sovereignty and maritime rights, using both diplomatic channels and legal instruments to assert its position in the ongoing territorial dispute.

Updated Philippine Map to Counter China’s Claims

In 2024, the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) announced plans to release a new and updated official map of the Philippines. This initiative aligns with the 2016 arbitral ruling and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), aiming to assert the Philippines’ maritime entitlements and counter China’s controversial “10-dash line” claim. The updated map will reflect the provisions of the newly enacted Philippine Maritime Zones Act, which clearly defines the country’s maritime zones, including the West Philippine Sea. NAMRIA Administrator Undersecretary Peter Tiangco emphasized that this new map will align with international standards and Philippine constitutional mandates, marking a significant step forward in the nation’s defense of its sovereignty.

The updated map will accurately delineate the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, ensuring compliance with UNCLOS and highlighting maritime boundaries with precision. This delineation is crucial for promoting environmental protection by identifying and preserving marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Additionally, the map will enhance navigation safety for both commercial and military vessels in the South China Sea by providing clear and reliable maritime charts. Administrator Tiangco noted that the previous map was based on historical agreements like the Treaty of Paris, but the new version reflects modern legal frameworks, particularly UNCLOS and national legislation.

Strategically, the updated map serves as a powerful diplomatic tool to counter China’s expansive claims over the South China Sea, now outlined in its “10-dash line” map. These claims overlap with the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations, which have led to tensions in the region. By asserting its maritime rights through an internationally compliant map, the Philippines seeks to strengthen its position in upholding the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated China’s excessive territorial claims. Furthermore, the updated map reaffirms the Philippines’ sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea and provides a legal basis for protecting its maritime resources and enforcing territorial boundaries.

The release of the updated map is expected to garner significant international support, reinforcing the Philippines’ stance in global forums and promoting a rules-based maritime order in the Indo-Pacific region. NAMRIA is currently in the final stages of the vetting process, involving consultations with various government agencies to ensure accuracy and consistency with existing laws. While awaiting the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, NAMRIA has prepared the delineation of maritime zones and archipelagic sea lanes in compliance with constitutional and international provisions.

Legal Basis and Regional Implications

The National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) announced the forthcoming release of an updated Philippine map that aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the newly enacted Philippine Maritime Zones Act (Republic Act No. 12064). Signed into law by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., this act defines the geographical extent of the country’s maritime zones, including its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf. The new map aims to reinforce the Philippines’ sovereign rights, particularly in disputed areas such as the Kalayaan Island Group, Scarborough Shoal, and the West Philippine Sea, while promoting compliance with international maritime standards.

The updated map is part of a broader strategy to counter China’s contentious “10-dash line” claim, which extends its territorial assertions over most of the South China Sea, overlapping with the EEZs of the Philippines and other neighboring nations. NAMRIA Administrator Peter Tiangco highlighted the “big difference” between the Philippine map, which is rooted in legal frameworks such as UNCLOS, and China’s maps, which lack international legal support. This updated map, once published, will pinpoint the Philippines’ lawful claims and strengthen its position in international discussions regarding maritime disputes.

A key focus of the new map is the promotion of sustainable maritime practices. It highlights areas of environmental importance, reaffirming the Philippines’ commitment to marine biodiversity conservation and the responsible use of marine resources. Additionally, the map provides a clear delineation of maritime boundaries, which is critical for ensuring navigation safety for commercial and military vessels operating in the South China Sea. By establishing precise territorial markers, the map enhances maritime security and supports safe passage for international shipping lanes.

Complementing this initiative, President Marcos also signed the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (Republic Act No. 12065), which outlines designated routes for foreign vessels and aircraft passing through Philippine waters, in accordance with UNCLOS and the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Together, these legislative measures support the Philippines’ sovereignty, protect its maritime domain, and establish a rules-based framework for managing its territorial waters.

Significance of the Map

The release of the new Philippine map will mark a historic moment, being the first update since the landmark 2016 arbitral ruling by The Hague, which invalidated China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea. The map will highlight the Philippines’ sovereign rights and maritime entitlements recognized under international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Anchored in the Philippine Maritime Zones Act, this legal framework clarifies the country’s maritime domain and provides a basis for asserting its rights in contested waters. Unlike China’s recently revised 10-dash line map, the Philippines’ updated map stands firmly on legal grounds, reinforcing its territorial and maritime claims through globally recognized norms.

A key feature of the updated map is the incorporation of the Philippine Rise (formerly Benham Rise), a 13-million-hectare undersea plateau located 250 kilometers east of northern Luzon. Approved by the United Nations in 2012 as part of the Philippines’ extended continental shelf, the Philippine Rise is rich in marine biodiversity, including coral reefs, algae, and sponges that sustain various fish species. Its potential goes beyond ecology, with vast deposits of methane hydrates and other valuable seabed resources such as cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts. These minerals hold promise for the aerospace industry and global energy needs, further emphasizing the region’s strategic and economic significance.

The Philippine government has undertaken extensive scientific initiatives in the Philippine Rise, highlighted by marine expeditions like the 2017 Coordinated National Marine Scientific Research Initiatives and Related Activities (CONMIRA). Research efforts have uncovered its role as the country’s most productive tuna fishing ground and explored opportunities for renewable energy and marine biotechnology. Oceanographers are also studying currents and physical processes to better understand typhoon patterns, benefiting not just the Philippines but the entire region. Amidst maritime disputes in the West Philippine Sea, the Philippine Rise offers a secure area for continued research, illustrating the balance between scientific pursuits and national sovereignty.

The new map also integrates the West Philippine Sea, reflecting the Philippines’ ongoing efforts to counter China’s aggressive actions and reinforce its sovereign rights. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration has prioritized these updates as part of broader maritime legislation, including the Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act. This law establishes regulated routes for foreign military and civilian vessels, ensuring compliance with UNCLOS and the Chicago Convention. By updating its map and implementing robust legal measures, the Philippines not only asserts its territorial integrity but also enhances regional stability in the face of growing tensions in the South China Sea.

Why BRP Sierra Madre is important for the Philippines?

Regional Tensions Over China’s New Map

In 2024, tensions surrounding China’s updated 10-dash line map remain high, with strong protests from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Released in August 2023, the map asserts expansive territorial claims, including disputed areas in the South China Sea and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, as well as the Aksai Chin plateau. India, which considers Arunachal Pradesh its territory, was the first to issue a formal protest, with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar denouncing China’s claims as “absurd.” Other nations have followed suit, rejecting the map’s validity under international law. The Philippines has declared the map “illegal” and cited a 2016 Hague tribunal ruling that invalidated China’s claims. Vietnam and Malaysia have issued similar statements, emphasizing violations of their sovereignty and exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Taiwan, claimed by China as a province, has also reiterated its independent status.

China’s map introduces a tenth dash east of Taiwan, intensifying regional disputes. It reaffirms its territorial claims over nearly all of the South China Sea, encroaching on areas claimed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The map has also raised concerns about China’s intentions regarding Taiwan. The dispute further extends to historical contentions, such as the inclusion of Russia’s Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, despite a 2008 treaty resolving the matter. Analysts view this move as China’s attempt to assert dominance and revive irredentist territorial ambitions.

Military maneuvers and diplomatic posturing have escalated as nations push back against China’s assertions. China’s Coast Guard has intensified patrols in contested waters, leading to confrontations with Philippine vessels and sparking fears of potential conflict. In response, countries like Malaysia and Vietnam have sought clarity and pressed for adherence to international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These actions are compounded by the involvement of external powers like the United States, which has criticized China’s claims and pledged support for its regional allies. The Philippines and Vietnam have emphasized the importance of UNCLOS as the basis for resolving disputes and rejected China’s narrative of historical sovereignty.

Critics argue that the map’s timing reflects a calculated move by China to stir debate, ensuring its claims dominate diplomatic discussions. Analysts like James Chin of the University of Tasmania suggest that Beijing’s intent is to maintain its territorial claims at the forefront of regional politics while signaling defiance of the 2016 Hague ruling. This strategy reinforces China’s nationalist rhetoric under President Xi Jinping and highlights its willingness to assert dominance despite international criticism. However, countries like India and the Philippines have countered with public rallies, cultural events, and strong diplomatic protests, while others, such as Vietnam, prefer quieter opposition through Communist Party channels.

Despite widespread criticism, China remains resolute in enforcing its territorial claims. Beijing defends the map as a routine administrative publication, urging other nations to view it “objectively.” However, experts warn that the map risks escalating regional tensions, particularly in the South China Sea, a vital trade route with an estimated $5 trillion in annual trade passing through it. Analysts foresee heightened military encounters and closer interactions between China and U.S.-allied forces operating in the region. While countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines continue to voice opposition, their ability to compel China to alter its stance remains limited. The 10-dash line thus symbolizes China’s broader strategy of territorial assertion and its unyielding approach to regional disputes.

What are the Most Pressing Challenges for the Philippines in 2024?

Analysis

Philippines China Trade Accusations Over New South China Sea Confrontation

Tensions between China and the Philippines flared once again following a maritime confrontation near the contested Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, further intensifying a long-standing territorial dispute. Both nations offered conflicting accounts of the incident, highlighting the fragile state of relations in one of the world’s most strategic waterways.

The Philippine government accused China of “aggressive actions” after Chinese coast guard vessels reportedly fired water cannons and sideswiped a Philippine fisheries bureau boat that was delivering supplies to Filipino fishermen. Video evidence released by Philippine officials showed a large Chinese vessel approaching the smaller Philippine boat before the collision and the use of water cannons. Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesperson Jay Tarriela labeled the actions as “overkill,” stating that they endangered lives and disrupted legitimate Philippine maritime operations.

The United States condemned China’s actions, with U.S. Ambassador to Manila MaryKay Carlson describing them as “unlawful” and reaffirming the U.S.’s commitment to supporting allies in maintaining a free and open Pacific. The U.S. has increasingly voiced concerns over China’s aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea, with this latest confrontation drawing swift international attention.

China, however, presented a different narrative. According to the Chinese Coast Guard, four Philippine ships “dangerously approached” its vessels, attempting to enter what Beijing considers its territorial waters around Scarborough Shoal, known in China as Huangyan Island. Coast Guard spokesperson Liu Dejun defended the actions of Chinese vessels as necessary to “exercise control” over what he described as provocative and unsafe maneuvers by the Philippine side.

Liu added that one Philippine vessel ignored repeated warnings, further escalating tensions. “We warn the Philippines to immediately stop infringement, provocation, and propaganda; otherwise, it will bear all consequences,” he said in a statement.

The confrontation comes on the heels of a November diplomatic dispute after China unilaterally declared baseline territorial waters around Scarborough Shoal. This week, Beijing submitted nautical charts to the United Nations reinforcing its claims, which the Philippines has rejected as “baseless” and “illegal.” Alexander Lopez, spokesperson for the Philippines’ National Maritime Council, reiterated the country’s sovereign claim to the area, calling China’s actions part of a broader pattern of aggression, coercion, and intimidation.

“The aggressive posture of Chinese vessels highlights a continuing pattern of disregard for Philippine sovereignty and international law,” Lopez stated during a press briefing. He urged China to exercise self-restraint and respect the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated Beijing’s expansive claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Scarborough Shoal has been a flashpoint for years. Although the arbitral tribunal ruled in 2016 that the area is a traditional fishing ground open to multiple nationalities, China has maintained a near-constant presence there, effectively blocking access to Philippine vessels. Tensions escalated further in recent months as Beijing ramped up its activities, including submitting maps that the Philippines insists infringe on its exclusive economic zone.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently signed two new maritime laws aimed at strengthening the country’s territorial integrity. The Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act define the nation’s maritime zones and sea lanes more clearly, a move Beijing has called a provocation. In response, China summoned the Philippine ambassador to Beijing and warned that it would take “necessary measures” to protect its territorial sovereignty.

U S Funded Port in Batanes The Bold Move to Counter China

China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, a vital maritime route facilitating over $3 trillion in annual trade, with overlapping claims from Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Despite years of negotiations on a code of conduct for the waterway between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), disputes persist, with some ASEAN members insisting the code must adhere to UNCLOS principles.

While Beijing asserts that its baseline submissions to the UN are consistent with international law, the Philippines and other claimants have dismissed them as lacking legal merit. “This is not a legitimate exercise of maritime rights but a blatant attempt to expand control,” Lopez said.

The ongoing dispute raises concerns about broader regional stability. The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, dating back to 1951, could potentially draw Washington into any armed conflict in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, ASEAN nations continue to navigate a delicate balance between maintaining security ties with the U.S. and avoiding provocation with China, a dominant economic power in the region.

This latest confrontation highlights the growing risk of miscalculation in the South China Sea, where competing claims and aggressive posturing by China have created a volatile environment. As diplomatic efforts struggle to keep pace with the rapid escalation of maritime tensions, the future of peace and stability in the region remains uncertain.