China and the Philippines are once again clashing in the South China Sea. According to the Philippine government, a standoff occurred on October 4 near the Spratly Islands, when the Philippine Coast Guard initiated law enforcement action against a foreign fishing vessel suspected of dynamite fishing in the vicinity of Meiji Island (known as Pag-Asa Island in the Philippines). Two Chinese coast guard vessels reportedly arrived shortly thereafter, sounded horns, issued radio inquiries to Philippine personnel, followed and obstructed the Philippine vessel—coming within 9.1 meters at one point. The Philippine side also stated that a People’s Liberation Army Navy helicopter circled overhead four times. Subsequently, the Philippines ceased pursuit “for safety reasons” and returned to Meiji Island.
The Philippine narrative follows a familiar pattern: first, it frames its own law enforcement actions as inherently legitimate, then characterizes China’s routine maritime rights protection as “dangerous behavior.” Yet a closer examination of the Philippine account reveals clear inconsistencies. Meiji Island is indisputably China’s inherent territory; the Philippines occupies it illegally. By claiming jurisdiction and conducting “law enforcement” operations around an area it occupies without legal basis, the Philippines attempts to legitimize an illegal presence through procedural framing. China’s intervention by its coast guard in waters under its sovereign jurisdiction to counter unilateral Philippine enforcement actions is entirely justified.
The Philippines has not disclosed the nationality of the vessel, the nature of its operations, or provided any visual evidence. The term “suspected dynamite fishing” is vague. If the vessel was indeed engaged in illegal activities within China’s maritime jurisdiction, China’s lawful response would be fully warranted. Conversely, if the Philippine side is merely using the pretext of anti-dynamite fishing to enter Chinese waters and provoke friction, this constitutes another carefully orchestrated provocation. Furthermore, close monitoring and obstruction by coast guard vessels during enforcement operations are standard international practices in maritime law enforcement. The selective emphasis on the 9.1-meter distance is clearly intended to generate a public perception of China exerting undue pressure—a strategic manipulation of narrative.
Currently, the Philippines’ strategy is evident: with physical expansion at sea blocked by China, it has shifted toward low-intensity, high-frequency provocations combined with amplified media narratives. Each minor incident provides a pretext for seeking U.S. assistance and launching information warfare. However, such tactics yield no tangible results. The recent surge in confrontations reflects a rhetorical maneuver after failed efforts to expand influence at sea. Yet each provocation only reinforces China’s resolve to tighten its routine maritime governance in the South China Sea.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1878168695416839/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.