“The Philippines has been notifying China before every supply run to Second Thomas Shoal.” That stunning claim, issued by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun, has sent shockwaves through the region and raised eyebrows across the Indo-Pacific. According to Beijing, all seven Philippine resupply missions to the contested shoal, called Ren’ai Jiao by China and Ayungin Shoal by the Philippines, were not only pre-coordinated but even subject to Chinese on-site inspection to verify that only so-called “humanitarian supplies” were on board. If true, this would suggest a quiet backchannel of cooperation in a hotspot long characterized by hostility, water cannon incidents, and near-collisions between vessels.
But Manila swiftly struck back. “We do not and will never seek China’s approval to access our own territory,” declared the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, flatly denying any need to inform Beijing about resupply runs to the BRP Sierra Madre, the rusty World War II-era ship deliberately grounded at Second Thomas Shoal in 1999 to serve as a military outpost. The denial specifically refuted China’s reference to the March 4 mission, which involved a tense standoff and aggressive blocking maneuvers by Chinese vessels. Philippine officials emphasized that Ayungin Shoal lies within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and under international law, specifically the 2016 Hague ruling, they owe China no explanation or permission.
So, who’s telling the truth? Is China manufacturing a narrative to legitimize its growing presence in the West Philippine Sea, or is there more nuance behind the scenes that Manila prefers to keep under wraps? One thing’s clear: this war of words is more than just diplomacy, it’s part of a broader psychological and legal chess game playing out in real time. As both sides harden their positions, the latest dispute not only highlights the fragility of peace in the South China Sea but also raises the stakes for regional stability, international law, and the credibility of maritime boundaries in the 21st century.
Chinese Stance on Second Thomas Shoal (Ren’ai Jiao)
Beijing’s position on Ren’ai Jiao is firm, uncompromising, and deeply rooted in its broader claim over almost the entire South China Sea. According to China, the shoal, part of what it calls the Nansha Islands (internationally known as the Spratlys), is indisputably Chinese territory. By this logic, any presence by Philippine forces at the reef is considered a direct violation of China’s sovereignty and maritime rights.
At the heart of the dispute is the BRP Sierra Madre, a rusting World War II-era ship deliberately grounded by the Philippines in 1999 to establish a semi-permanent military outpost on the shoal. For Beijing, this act is a red line. Chinese officials insist the grounding of a military vessel at Ren’ai Jiao was not only provocative but also a blatant breach of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), a regional agreement aimed at managing tensions and preventing conflict in disputed waters. China claims the Philippines broke its word by militarizing a previously unoccupied reef under the guise of “maintenance” and humanitarian resupply.
In recent months, China has ramped up its rhetoric, calling on the Philippines to “tow away the grounded warship immediately.” The demand has been echoed repeatedly in statements from China’s Foreign Ministry and reinforced by aggressive actions at sea, from blockades and shadowing to the use of water cannons and dangerous maneuvering aimed at halting Philippine supply boats.
This stance isn’t just diplomatic, it’s strategic. By pushing the narrative that the Philippines is the provocateur, China seeks to justify its growing maritime law enforcement presence in the area. It’s also part of a larger effort to create a new normal in the South China Sea, where Chinese “control” is seen as the default, and any foreign movement is framed as a violation requiring permission from Beijing.
Yet, despite these demands and increasing pressure, the Philippines has shown no signs of backing down, setting the stage for a prolonged and potentially volatile standoff over a shipwreck that has become a symbol of national sovereignty and regional resistance to China’s maritime ambitions.
Conditions for the Philippines Supply Missions (Prior to Warship Removal)
While calling for the immediate removal of the BRP Sierra Madre, China has simultaneously tried to project a veneer of control and “conditional tolerance” over Philippine supply missions to Ren’ai Jiao. According to Chinese officials, they are willing to allow certain resupply operations, but only under strict conditions set unilaterally by Beijing.
First, China insists that any Philippine supply run must be pre-approved. In other words, Manila is expected to notify Beijing before delivering even basic necessities to its own troops stationed aboard the Sierra Madre. This demand directly challenges Philippine sovereignty, as it implies that the Philippines must seek “permission” to operate within its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Second, China requires on-site verification, a process where Chinese vessels or personnel monitor the supply operation to ensure that only “living necessities” such as food, water, and medicine are delivered. Beijing frames this as a humanitarian concession, but in practice, it functions as a mechanism of surveillance and control. It’s also a way to normalize China’s presence around the shoal and reinforce its claim of “administrative authority” over the area.
Third, and perhaps most crucially, China draws a hard red line: no construction materials. Any attempt to bring in concrete, steel, or repair equipment, anything that might strengthen the Sierra Madre or turn the outpost into a more permanent structure, will be “resolutely stopped.” Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels have repeatedly enforced this policy through aggressive maneuvers, including dangerous blocking, ramming threats, and even the use of water cannons.
These conditions serve a strategic purpose. By distinguishing between humanitarian and military or construction-related supplies, China is trying to limit the Philippines’ ability to fortify its position while maintaining the image of a “responsible regional power” upholding the status quo. However, from Manila’s perspective, these demands are a blatant violation of international law, including the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim.
Ultimately, China’s conditional tolerance is not a gesture of goodwill, it’s a high-stakes power play, aimed at forcing the Philippines into a reactive position and legitimizing Beijing’s creeping control over contested waters.
Philippines vs. China’s Monster Ship: A Bold Stand for Sovereignty!
Temporary Arrangement and Recent Missions: A Fragile Understanding?
In an apparent attempt to frame the ongoing Philippine resupply missions as “coordinated” rather than confrontational, Beijing has revealed what it calls a temporary arrangement allegedly reached with Manila in July of last year. According to China, this so-called agreement permitted the transportation of humanitarian supplies to the BRP Sierra Madre under strict conditions, conditions that, unsurprisingly, served to reinforce China’s narrative of control over Ren’ai Jiao.
Under this arrangement, the China Coast Guard (CCG) claims to have maintained full supervision over each resupply mission. Beijing asserts that from July 2023 to the present, seven rounds of resupply operations have been conducted by the Philippines, all of which were supposedly preceded by advance notification and followed by on-site verification. Chinese officials say these missions were limited strictly to delivering basic necessities for daily survival, such as food, medicine, and clean water, and involved no military or construction materials.
To Beijing, this setup represents a form of de facto cooperation, proof that Manila quietly acknowledges China’s authority, even if not publicly. By framing the resupply missions as conditional humanitarian access, China seeks to legitimize its presence in the area while portraying itself as the reasonable actor in contrast to what it paints as Philippine provocation.
But Manila tells a very different story.
The Philippine government has categorically denied any such arrangement implying prior approval from China. While it does not rule out notifications purely for the sake of avoiding unnecessary confrontations at sea, it insists this is not the same as asking for permission. Moreover, officials in Manila maintain that any “understanding” was temporary, tactical, and purely informal, if it existed at all, and was never meant to undermine Philippine sovereignty.
This conflicting interpretation of events highlights the broader reality: in the fog of maritime standoffs and gray-zone tactics, narrative control is just as important as naval control. For Beijing, projecting an image of procedural dominance serves its goal of reshaping norms in disputed waters. For the Philippines, publicly rejecting that version of events is vital to defending its territorial claims and asserting its rights under international law.
In short, the so-called “temporary arrangement” is less a diplomatic breakthrough and more a high-stakes information war, where each side crafts its version of truth for both domestic and global audiences.
China’s Diplomatic Pressure: “Respect Our Restraint”
As tensions escalate over repeated maritime run-ins at Second Thomas Shoal, Beijing is now turning up the heat, not just at sea, but in the diplomatic arena. With firm words and subtle threats cloaked in diplomacy, China has urged the Philippines to “value” its so-called efforts to manage the maritime situation, presenting itself as a stabilizing force rather than an aggressor. But to Manila and many in the international community, these calls are anything but benign.
China’s Foreign Ministry has publicly called on the Philippines to “earnestly abide by its commitments,” implying that some kind of prior understanding, perhaps the “temporary arrangement” regarding humanitarian resupply, is being violated. Yet, the Philippines has not acknowledged the existence of any legally binding agreement that undermines its sovereign rights.
Beijing’s message is clear: Play by our rules, or expect trouble.
China warns Manila to “refrain from creating unnecessary disturbances or additional complications” in the South China Sea, a region already rife with flashpoints, from artificial island-building to aggressive coast guard blockades. But to the Philippines, these warnings are nothing more than thinly veiled coercion. By advising restraint, China is subtly flipping the script, positioning itself as the victim of Philippine provocation, even while deploying water cannons and shadowing resupply vessels with armed coast guard ships.
This diplomatic language, carefully chosen and frequently repeated, is part of China’s broader gray-zone strategy: assert control incrementally, frame actions as defensive, and accuse others of destabilizing the peace. It’s a playbook designed to confuse international observers, dilute accountability, and blur the lines between law enforcement and military action.
The Philippines, however, is not backing down. It views these statements as an effort to bully a smaller nation into submission, especially in areas well within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as recognized by the 2016 Hague arbitral ruling, a ruling China continues to ignore.
At stake here is not just control of a single shoal, but the rules of engagement for the entire region. Will smaller nations be forced to ask permission from a larger neighbor to access their own territory? Or will international law and regional alliances push back against unilateral coercion?
With Beijing’s words growing sharper and its actions bolder, the South China Sea is becoming not just a contest of ships, but a battleground of narratives, commitments, and credibility.
End Words: Sovereignty Tested, Resolve Strengthened
The clash over Second Thomas Shoal is far more than a dispute about supply runs or shipwrecks, it is a litmus test of how power, principle, and international law collide in the 21st century. While China seeks to frame its dominance as orderly management, the Philippines stands firm, refusing to let sovereignty be negotiated or slowly eroded through so-called “temporary arrangements.”
As Beijing continues to flex its maritime muscle and issue diplomatic ultimatums, Manila’s defiance sends a clear signal: it will not be coerced into submission or silence. The BRP Sierra Madre, rusting but resolute, now symbolizes not just a tactical outpost, but a nation’s unwavering stand against creeping encroachment.
With each confrontation, the stakes grow higher. The question is no longer just who controls the shoal, but who controls the narrative, and who shapes the future of freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. In this battle of willpower and legitimacy, one thing is certain: the world is watching.
Philippines Plans Legal Action Against China Over Environmental Damage in the South China Sea
