Sandy Cay, a scattering of tiny sandbars near Pag-asa Island, has abruptly emerged as the newest pressure point in the South China Sea. For years, this reef was little more than a footnote on maritime maps, submerged at high tide and ignored by most of the world. But in 2025, it has been thrust to the center of the Philippines–China rivalry, forcing the question now hanging over Manila: can President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. hold the line if Beijing pushes harder?
The stakes escalated dramatically in April 2025, when Chinese Coast Guard personnel reportedly landed on Sandy Cay and planted a Chinese flag. This was no routine harassment at sea, it was a brazen act of sovereignty assertion, crossing a line from subtle “gray-zone” tactics into overt symbolic conquest. The Philippines responded swiftly, dispatching its own mission to the sandbank, unfurling the national flag, and rejecting Beijing’s claim that it had already “dealt with” Philippine personnel. In that moment, Sandy Cay transformed from an overlooked sandbar into a contested marker of national pride and sovereignty.
Barely a month later, the confrontation turned physical. On May 21, 2025, Chinese Coast Guard vessels blasted Philippine research ships with water cannons and even sideswiped one vessel in a deliberate, dangerous maneuver. Manila immediately released video evidence, showing the world the recklessness of China’s actions. The backlash was swift: Washington branded the incident “dangerous and destabilizing,” while Tokyo and Canberra issued strong condemnations. For Marcos, the clash was not only about defending territory, it was about winning the information war, demonstrating to allies and global audiences that China’s “peaceful rise” is anything but peaceful in Philippine waters.
And this is where the broader picture comes into play. Sandy Cay is not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of Chinese coercion and Philippine resistance. The clash coincides with a surge of allied activity in the region, from U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations to joint patrols with Australia and Japan. Marcos’s strategy of “assertive transparency” exposing, publicizing, and internationalizing every provocation, has turned Sandy Cay into more than a pile of sand. It has become a litmus test of whether alliances, international law, and global opinion can blunt Beijing’s creeping advances in the South China Sea.
History and Background
The South China Sea is no ordinary stretch of water, it is one of the most important arteries of global commerce and power projection. Every year, an estimated $3.4 trillion worth of trade flows through its sea lanes, making it one of the busiest and most valuable maritime highways in the world. Oil tankers, container ships, and naval vessels from every major power depend on these waters. Beneath the waves lie vast reserves of oil and natural gas, alongside some of the richest fishing grounds on Earth, a source of livelihood for millions across Southeast Asia. Whoever dominates the South China Sea doesn’t just hold sway over resources, but over one of the most strategic chokepoints of the 21st century economy.
For the Philippines, this is not an abstract reality, it is survival. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague delivered a landmark ruling under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That decision struck down China’s sweeping “nine-dash line” claim, declaring it had no basis in international law. More importantly, the tribunal addressed features like Sandy Cay, identifying it as a low-tide elevation and therefore not entitled to its own maritime entitlements. The ruling placed Sandy Cay squarely under the jurisdiction of the Philippines’ Thitu Island (Pag-asa), which sits well inside Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). For Manila, the ruling was a powerful legal weapon, proof that its sovereignty was not just a matter of nationalist rhetoric but firmly backed by international law. For Beijing, however, the decision was dismissed as “null and void,” a ruling it has consistently ignored while pressing its claims through force and persistence.
That persistence comes in the form of what analysts call “gray zone” tactics, China’s preferred method of creeping control without triggering outright war. Instead of using its navy openly, Beijing deploys its China Coast Guard and a shadowy network of maritime militia vessels to harass, intimidate, and block other nations’ ships. These tactics fall below the threshold of armed conflict, but they achieve what Beijing wants: incremental, salami-sliced gains. Over time, reefs are occupied, fishing grounds are restricted, and access is quietly denied. Sandy Cay is the latest chapter in this playbook. By landing coast guard personnel and raising a flag, then retreating under the cover of ambiguity, China is testing how far it can push without triggering a direct military response. It’s a strategy of pressure, provocation, and patience, one designed to wear down smaller nations like the Philippines while reshaping the reality at sea to Beijing’s advantage.
Implications of Provocation at Sandy Cay
Every new provocation at Sandy Cay is not an isolated incident, it is a direct challenge to Philippine sovereignty. Each time Chinese personnel step foot on the sandbank or raise a flag, it chips away at Manila’s de facto control of the feature and undermines the Philippines’ hard-won legal standing from the 2016 arbitral ruling. Sovereignty is not only defended in courtrooms or diplomatic halls, it is exercised by presence, patrols, and the ability to use and protect one’s territory. If Sandy Cay gradually slips under China’s shadow, it sets a dangerous precedent that even clear international law and tribunal rulings can be ignored, leaving Manila’s claims as paper victories eroded by facts on the ground. For the Philippines, this makes defending Sandy Cay not just a tactical issue but a test of national resolve.
The economic implications are equally pressing. For Filipino fishermen, Sandy Cay and the waters surrounding Thitu Island have been a traditional lifeline, providing both food and livelihood. But as Chinese Coast Guard and militia vessels increase their patrols, Filipino boats are harassed, blocked, or forced to retreat. This restricts access to vital fishing grounds, directly impacting local economies in Palawan and coastal provinces that depend on the West Philippine Sea. The broader picture is even starker. A 2021 study by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research estimated that a major conflict in the South China Sea could wipe out 10–33% of GDP for frontline states like the Philippines. Even without full-scale war, the uncertainty generated by repeated confrontations raises insurance costs for shipping, discourages investment, and creates instability in sectors tied to maritime resources. In short, Sandy Cay is not just a symbolic sandbank, it is tied to the economic security of millions of Filipinos.
Geopolitically, provocations at Sandy Cay could become a spark in an already volatile regional landscape. The South China Sea is crowded not just with Filipino and Chinese vessels, but also with U.S. warships, Australian patrols, Japanese reconnaissance aircraft, and increasing European naval visits. A confrontation here, especially one involving water cannons, collisions, or another attempt at a flag-raising stunt, could quickly draw in external powers. For Washington, which has repeatedly affirmed that the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty applies to armed attacks on Philippine vessels in the West Philippine Sea, a Chinese escalation at Sandy Cay is a potential trigger point. For Beijing, the presence of U.S. and allied forces so close to its claimed territory is intolerable, pushing it to respond with more patrols and aggressive maneuvers. The result is a tightening spiral, where each move and counter-move risks miscalculation. What begins as a small provocation on a sandbank could quickly become a regional crisis testing alliances, international law, and the fragile balance of peace in the Indo-Pacific.
Manila’s Reaction (Marcos’s Strategy)
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has pivoted to a new and more proactive approach in confronting China’s provocations at sea. Unlike past administrations that often practiced strategic ambiguity, downplaying incidents in hopes of quiet diplomacy, Marcos has embraced what his officials call “assertive transparency.” This means openly documenting and publicizing Chinese coercive actions instead of keeping them behind closed doors. When Philippine vessels are hit by water cannons, blocked by swarms of maritime militia, or sideswiped by Chinese cutters, the incidents are no longer whispered about in defense circles, they are released to the world through official videos, photographs, and press briefings. A case in point was the widely circulated footage of a China Coast Guard vessel blasting water cannons at a Philippine resupply mission to Second Thomas Shoal. The Marcos administration made sure those images reached global media outlets, generating not only outrage but also sympathy and diplomatic support for Manila. This transparency has reshaped the information battlefield, turning what used to be local skirmishes into global stories of David standing up to Goliath.
Alongside this strategy of exposure, Marcos has doubled down on strengthening alliances. Where China sees “courting outside powers,” Manila sees building lifelines of security. Marcos has repeatedly framed the Philippines’ position not as hostility toward China, but as a firm defense of sovereignty. As he put it: “We are not against anyone. We are just for territory. The defense of our territory, the respect to the exercise of our sovereign rights.” This framing reinforces that the Philippines is acting out of necessity, not aggression. The results of this alliance strategy are visible in the rapid expansion of joint military drills. The 2024 Balikatan exercises were the largest in history, drawing over 16,000 service members from the Philippines, the United States, and a growing roster of partner nations including Australia, Japan, and France. Notably, drills have expanded to include live-fire anti-ship missile tests, amphibious landings in northern Luzon, and coordinated maritime patrols in the West Philippine Sea. These activities send a clear signal: Manila is no longer alone, it stands within a tightening network of security partners committed to deterring Chinese adventurism.
China Threatens to Tow Philippines BRP Sierra Madre Can Manila Stop It?
At home, Marcos has pushed forward with military modernization at a scale not seen since the Cold War. Central to this is the “Re-Horizon 3” program, the third phase of the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ long-term modernization strategy. With a projected budget of up to $35 billion over the next decade, the program is designed to transition the AFP from a primarily counter-insurgency force into a capable external defense institution. The focus includes acquiring modern offshore patrol vessels, multi-role fighter aircraft, advanced missile defense systems, and enhanced radar networks. For the first time in decades, the Philippines is not just talking about defending its waters, it is investing heavily in the means to do so. Already, Tokyo has pledged to supply long-range radar systems, the U.S. is providing coastal defense missiles, and Manila has initiated contracts for new frigates and submarines. Together, these assets form the backbone of a strategy to ensure that provocations at Sandy Cay or elsewhere cannot simply go unanswered.
In short, Marcos’s strategy combines information warfare, alliance-building, and modernization. By shining a light on China’s actions, reinforcing its partnerships, and investing in hard power, the Philippines is signaling that it will not retreat into silence or weakness. The message is clear: Manila intends to defend its claims not only with legal arguments, but also with ships, soldiers, and a coalition of allies standing alongside it.
China’s Counter-Measures
Beijing has not remained idle in the face of Manila’s new playbook of assertive transparency and alliance-building. Instead, China has doubled down on its own repertoire of coercive tools, escalating its “gray zone” tactics while deploying economic, diplomatic, and information campaigns to counter the Philippines’ growing defiance. For Beijing, Sandy Cay and the broader South China Sea are not simply disputed reefs, they are litmus tests of China’s ability to project power, maintain prestige, and prevent smaller states from undermining its claim of “indisputable sovereignty.”
Escalating “Gray Zone” Tactics: In response to Manila’s publicized resupply missions and alliance-driven exercises, China has increased the frequency, size, and aggressiveness of its deployments. Where once a handful of China Coast Guard cutters or maritime militia boats would patrol the shoals, swarms of vessels are appearing regularly, boxing in Philippine ships with dangerous maneuvers. Analysts note a sharp uptick in “shouldering” incidents, where Chinese ships deliberately ram or bump Filipino vessels, as well as the sustained use of water cannons, military-grade lasers, and even acoustic weapons to harass crews without technically crossing the line into open warfare. Each of these actions is calibrated to exhaust the Philippines, erode its physical access to its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and test the credibility of its alliance with the United States. Sandy Cay, in particular, has become a focal point of this strategy, with Chinese vessels conducting nearly daily patrols since April 2025, when Chinese personnel briefly attempted to raise a flag on the sandbank. The message is blunt: Beijing will not yield an inch, even as Manila raises its own visibility on the global stage.
Information Warfare and Diplomatic Protests: Alongside physical coercion at sea, China has intensified its narrative warfare. State-controlled outlets like the Global Times and Xinhua regularly describe the Philippines as a “pawn of the United States”, accusing Manila of inviting instability into the region. The rhetoric is sharp, often tinged with nationalistic idioms meant to portray the Philippines as weak and manipulated. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials have dismissed the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling outright, reiterating Beijing’s long-held position. As one foreign ministry spokesperson declared: “The so-called arbitral award is illegal, null, and void, and has no binding force. China neither accepts nor recognizes it.” These statements are accompanied by a steady stream of diplomatic protests, with Beijing summoning Philippine envoys or issuing stern démarches whenever Manila publicizes new incidents. For Beijing, shaping international perception is as important as controlling shoals, the goal is to frame Manila as the provocateur, not the victim.
Satellite Reveals Damaged Chinese Coast Guard Ship Under Urgent Repairs in Hainan
Economic Coercion: Perhaps the most potent but less visible tool in China’s arsenal is economic leverage. Beijing has a history of weaponizing trade and investment against Manila during periods of heightened tension. A notable case came in 2012, after the Scarborough Shoal standoff, when China imposed stricter phytosanitary standards on Philippine bananas and mangoes, effectively cutting exports and inflicting significant losses on Filipino farmers. This form of coercion, often subtle and bureaucratic, allows Beijing to punish Manila without firing a shot. Similar patterns have reemerged in recent years. Chinese tourism, which once accounted for over a million annual visitors to the Philippines, has quietly dipped amid diplomatic flare-ups. More recently, business leaders have expressed concern that escalations over Sandy Cay could once again target Philippine agricultural exports, manufacturing supply chains, or even delay major Chinese-backed infrastructure projects in Manila. While China rarely admits these measures are political, the timing often aligns with periods of maritime confrontation, suggesting a deliberate attempt to create economic pain that weakens domestic support for Manila’s defiant stance.
Taken together, these counter-measures form a comprehensive Chinese strategy: pressure Manila at sea through gray zone coercion, undermine it diplomatically by branding it a pawn of outsiders, and squeeze it economically to sow hesitation among Philippine elites. For Beijing, the objective is not just to hold Sandy Cay but to teach Manila a lesson, that defiance carries costs, and sovereignty comes second to China’s regional ambitions.
Future Outlook
The Battle for Control: The struggle over Sandy Cay is not a passing skirmish, it is the frontline in a much larger battle for control over the South China Sea. For the Philippines, every resupply mission, every documented incident, and every unfurled flag is an assertion of its sovereign rights under international law. For China, each “gray zone” maneuver is a reminder that it will not abandon its sweeping territorial claims. This push and pull creates a tense equilibrium, one where sovereignty is defended not by dramatic battles but by daily acts of resistance and resilience. Sandy Cay, though just a sandbank, has become a powerful symbol: whoever controls it signals control over the broader strategic contest. The Marcos administration has elevated this once-overlooked feature into a litmus test of the Philippines’ willpower, transforming it into a proxy battlefield of narratives, laws, and ships.
Potential for Escalation: Yet the danger of escalation is never far away. The growing density of vessels, Philippine Coast Guard cutters, Chinese Coast Guard ships, militia swarms, and even naval escorts, means the margin for error is razor-thin. A sudden collision, an unplanned ramming, or even a single water cannon burst aimed too high could spark injuries or fatalities. Once blood is spilled, domestic political pressures on both sides would make de-escalation far more difficult. Analysts warn that Sandy Cay is the perfect environment for a miscalculation crisis: small vessels operating in close quarters, crews under immense stress, nationalist politics at home, and global powers watching closely. In such a scenario, what begins as a “routine provocation” could quickly spiral into an international flashpoint, drawing in U.S. and allied forces through security treaties and mutual defense commitments. Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, and now Sandy Cay are not isolated disputes, they are tinderboxes where a single spark could light the region.
Conclusion.
Looking ahead, the Marcos administration faces one of the greatest strategic tests of its time: how to sustain its assertive transparency strategy without tipping into open confrontation. Manila’s decision to publicize Chinese coercion has already won it international sympathy and bolstered alliances, but sustaining momentum requires more than exposure, it requires credible deterrence. Continuous military modernization, under the Re-Horizon 3 program, is critical to ensure the Philippines has the tools to enforce its sovereignty, protect its fishermen, and withstand Chinese intimidation. At the same time, Manila must work tirelessly to maintain a unified international coalition, ensuring that the 2016 arbitral ruling remains a living precedent rather than a forgotten document.
Ultimately, the ability to deter and respond to the next provocation at Sandy Cay will be a defining moment, not only for the Marcos presidency but for the future of international law in the South China Sea. If Manila can hold its ground, backed by allies and armed with both legal legitimacy and growing military capability, Sandy Cay may become more than a flashpoint. It may stand as proof that even the smallest state can resist the creeping shadow of coercion and preserve the principle that might not make right in one of the world’s most contested waters.
