China should not push its luck at West Philippine Sea

on

In response to Washington’s position against China’s sovereignty claims over the West Philippine sea, the Communist state reiterated its official stand saying sovereign claims have a “long basis in history” and it “conforms with international law.”

Chinese reactions came after United States Anthony Blinken called Philippine foreign secretary Teddy Locsin who recently filed a formal diplomatic protest against China’s law directing its Coast Guard to shoot any vessel that would go near its claimed islands. Most of China’s island claims are within the economic zone of the Philippines, a fact undisputed even by the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea or UNCLOS.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH CHINA– its statements are at best, lies and do not conform with its true conduct in the region. Its historical claims are based on nothing and those islands it now claims as theirs are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. How then do these claims conform with international law?

China also says that the US must leave China and the rest of the claimant countries alone to avoid possible outbreak of conflict. Such a statement is typical of a bully who does not want another bully to interfere with its actions against weaker or smaller states. The activities undertaken by China are violations already of Philippine territorial sovereignty and the UNCLOS already resolved this by junking China’s nine dash line claims.

The US position is now clear— it will assist the Philippines in an event of an attack by an aggressor country. This includes possibly further occupation of islands and islets within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. China–make no mistake about the resolve of the US on this. A naval war against China is one such event that the US is visibly waiting to happen.

Philippine president Rodrigo Roa Duterte urges China to respect a code of conduct that now prevails relations among claimant states. How will a state trust China when it issues a law that threatens armed aggression against any state vessel that goes near its military island installations.

China should not boast. Their Communist leaders must not think they are already at par with the US armed forces. China must learn from its history. When China was growing as a global trade giant during the 18th century, its growth was severely impaired when the British armada smashed Chinese junks to oblivion. Yes, China has all the sophisticated war machine at its disposal now, even nuclear weapons. What China’s forces lack is combat experience. It may have the numbers (a million standing army) but most of its units are at best, only good at suppressing the rights of its own people. China has not won any single war in modern history. It should not push its luck or test its fate at the West Philippine Sea.

 

 


Discover more from Current Ph

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Avatar photo
Richard EM Riverahttp://www.currentph.com
Richard E. M. Rivera is a scholar-practitioner specializing in international relations, governance, and strategic communication. He is completing his degree in International Studies at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, and holds a post-graduate diploma in General Management from the Asian Institute of Management. He currently serves as Managing Partner and Senior Advisor at Rebel Manila Marketing Services, a public relations agency focused on crisis management, reputation strategy, and government relations. Previously, he was Vice President at FleishmanHillard, advising global and regional clients on strategic communication and issues management. A Certified Public Relations Crisis Advisor and Certified Paralegal, Mr. Rivera also co-convenes Artikulo Onse, a broad civic coalition advocating transparency, accountability, and the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.

LEAVE A REPLY

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MUST READ

Defunding Rail Maintenance: Keeping Today’s Trains Alive for Tomorrow’s...

One Metro Manila line still runs cars that first carried passengers in December 1999, nearly 27 years ago (DOTr, 1999). At rush hour, many...

MAS PINABILIS NA ANG PAGBIYAHE SA VICTORY LINER!

MAS PINABILIS NA ANG PAGBIYAHE SA VICTORY LINER! Mas madali at mas convenient na ang pagkuha ng bus tickets! Alamin kung paano gagawing mas mabilis at...

MC Taxi Riders Appeal to LTFRB amidst Overboarding Issue

MANILA, Philippines, October 22, 2026 — Motorcycle taxi riders are calling on the Marcos administration and transport regulatory bodies to provide those operating beyond...

China’s Wolf Warriors are Back. Beijing Should Recall Its...

China's ambassador to the Philippines has accomplished in a few sentences what years of Chinese public diplomacy have struggled to prevent: He has reinforced the perception that Beijing regards its smaller neighbors not as sovereign equals, but as countries expected to accommodate its growing military and economic power.

Beyond the 2027 Invasion Timeline: Diplomatic Isolation, Ontological Security,...

This paper challenges military-centered assessments of a possible People's Republic of China (PRC) operation against Taiwan by 2027, arguing that Beijing's calculations may depend not only on military readiness and economic costs but also on diplomatic recognition, international legitimacy, and political identity. It advances a conditional framework integrating ontological security theory, the Chinese sociological concept of mianzi (face), and recognition politics. The paper proposes that Taiwan's declining diplomatic recognition could strengthen Beijing's sovereignty narrative, create a perceived loss of face for Taiwan's governing authorities, and alter the political conditions under which Beijing considers coercive or military unification. Drawing on official PRC statements, U.S. security assessments, and international relations scholarship, the analysis develops three propositions concerning recognition, status vulnerability, and coercive decision-making. It argues that complete diplomatic isolation could represent a significant political threshold without necessarily eliminating Taiwan's international relationships or legitimizing the use of force. The paper contributes to cross-strait security studies by identifying diplomatic recognition as a potentially important condition that shapes Beijing's assessment of the political feasibility and costs of unification, beyond conventional materialist explanations.

Discover more from Current Ph

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading