China and Philippines use flags to stake competing claims in South China Sea
The Philippines has rejected China's claim to a group of three sandbars in the South China Sea, after recent displays by both sides of their national flags on the uninhabited outcrops.
The back and forth over Sandy Cay is the latest flare-up in a long-running dispute over territory in the hotly contested South China Sea, which China claims almost in its entirety.
Advertisement
The flare-up began last week when a Chinese state-owned newspaper posted exclusive photos of coast guard officers on Sandy Cay from mid-April, including one of them holding up a Chinese flag.
Three days later, on Sunday, a joint Philippines coast guard, navy and maritime police team headed to the three sandbars and posed for a photo holding up their national flag.
A government statement said: 'This operation reflects the unwavering dedication and commitment of the Philippine Government to uphold the country's sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea.'
It was posted on social media site X with a video and photos, including one showing team members holding up the Philippine flag.
Advertisement
A Chinese coast guard ship patrols the area as Philippine inter-agency members visit Sandy Cay in the South China Sea on Sunday (National Task Force West Philippine Sea/AP)
The Chinese coast guard described the Philippine landing as 'illegal' and said Chinese officers had gone ashore 'to conduct on-site verification and enforcement measures'. It did not specify what those steps entailed.
The sandbars are in the Spratly Islands, between Philippine-occupied Thitu Island and Subi Reef, which China has transformed into a base with a military-grade runway and buildings with communications facilities.
China's state-owned Global Times newspaper, which published the photos of coast guard officers on the sandbars earlier this month, said they had picked up plastic bottles and other debris and displayed the Chinese national flag 'to assert sovereignty'.
Jonathan Malaya, assistant director-general of the Philippine National Security Council, said on Monday that there is no truth to claims that China has seized the sandbars.
Advertisement
He attributed the claims to the Chinese coast guard, though the agency has not said anything about the mid-April landing described in the Global Times report, and later by the military channel of state broadcaster CCTV.
'We urge the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Coast Guard to act with restraint and not increase tensions in the West Philippine Sea,' Mr Malaya told a news conference,
The two countries have previously jostled over Sandy Cay, known as Tiexian Reef in Chinese and Pag-asa Cays in the Philippines.
In January, the Chinese coast guard and a naval helicopter drove away a group of Philippines fisheries ships that were attempting to conduct a scientific survey around Sandy Cay.
Advertisement
Philippine government vessels took scientists to Sandy Cay in March last year for marine research despite repeated warnings by Chinese coast guard ships.
Chinese officials accused the Philippine military of attempting to build a structure on one of the sandbars in 2017.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
U.K., Canada, Australia and others sanction 2 far-right Israeli ministers for 'inciting extremist violence'
JERUSALEM — Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway said Tuesday they have imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers for allegedly 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The decision by Western governments friendly to Israel was a sharp rebuke of Israel's settlement policies in the West Bank and of settler violence, which has spiked since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack ignited the war in the Gaza Strip. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, key partners in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's coalition, are champions of Israeli settlement who support continuing the war in Gaza, facilitating what they call the voluntary emigration of its Palestinian population and the rebuilding of Jewish settlements there. They could now face asset freezes and travel bans. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the five countries said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two men 'have been inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months' and 'encouraging egregious abuses of human rights.' 'These measures are directed at individuals who directly contribute to extremist settler violence,' said Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand. 'The measures are not directed against the state of Israel itself.' New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters said Wednesday that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir 'have severely and deliberately undermined' prospects for peace and security while 'inciting violence and forced displacement.' 'Our action today is not against the Israeli people, who suffered immeasurably on October 7 and who have continued to suffer through Hamas' ongoing refusal to release all hostages,' Peters said in a statement. 'Nor is it designed to sanction the wider Israeli government.' Smotrich wrote on social media that he learned of the sanctions while he was inaugurating a new West Bank settlement. 'We are determined to continue building,' he said. Ben-Gvir, also writing on social media, said 'we overcame Pharoah, we'll overcome Starmer's Wall,' referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. condemned the sanctions and urged their reversal. 'We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace,' he said in a post on X. 'We remind our partners not to forget who the real enemy is.' Israel's government also condemned the announcement, which came as traditional allies of Israel escalate denouncements of Israel's actions in Gaza, from the high civilian death toll to a monthslong blockade that led to famine warnings. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the sanctions decision 'outrageous.' He said he had discussed it with Netanyahu and that they would meet next week to discuss Israel's response. He said the move threatened to harden Hamas' stance in ongoing negotiations to end the war in Gaza and to cut short Israel's operation in Gaza before it achieves its goals. Benny Gantz, a centrist Israeli lawmaker and political rival to Netanyahu, wrote that he 'vehemently' disagreed with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but said the move was a 'profound moral mistake and sends a dangerous message to terrorists around the world.' Netanyahu is the target of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court last year over alleged war crimes in Gaza, part of a global wave of outrage at Israel's conduct during its 20-month war against Hamas. Netanyahu has denied the allegations and accused the court of being biased against Israel. The Biden administration took the rare step of sanctioning radical Israeli settlers implicated in violence in the occupied West Bank — sanctions that were lifted by President Donald Trump. Eitay Mack, an Israeli human rights lawyer who spent years campaigning for the sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — along with violent West Bank settlers — described Tuesday's move as 'historic.' 'It means the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken,' he said. 'It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing.' Mack added: 'It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next.' Israel captured the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want all three territories for a future state. Successive Israeli governments have promoted settlement growth and construction stretching back decades. It has exploded under Netanyahu's far-right coalition, which has settlers in key Cabinet posts. There are now well over 100 settlements across the West Bank that house more than 500,000 settlers. The settlers have Israeli citizenship, while the territory's 3 million Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, with the Palestinian Authority administering population centers. Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal, and Palestinians see them as the greatest obstacle to an eventual two-state solution, which is still seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
In China, fears grow of an EV financial crisis amid pricing war
At a used car market in Beijing, salesman Ma Hui said he fears China's electric vehicle industry is in a race to the bottom. EV makers, led by the country's market leader BYD, have been engaged in a bruising price war, depressing profits for the brands, as well as sellers such as Ma. 'All of us were losing money last year,' Ma said about his fellow used car sellers in the market. 'There are too many companies making too many new energy cars.' China's trading partners have often accused the country of flooding the global market with cheap Chinese EVs. These days, similar accusations are flying within China, raising concerns about financial stress in the industry. The official Communist Party paper, the People's Daily, for example, published a commentary on Monday, titled 'The 'Price War' in the Automotive Industry Leads Nowhere and Has No Future.' 'Disorderly 'price wars' squeeze profits across the chain, impacting the entire ecosystem and risking income declines for workers,' the paper warned. 'Long-term, this 'race to the bottom' competition is unsustainable.' BYD is drawing the most fire after it announced price cuts in late May for many of its models. Some of the discounts are as steep as 34%. Its cheapest car, the Seagull mini hatchback, now costs only about $7,700, down from about $10,000. The intense price war has led high-profile auto executives to sound the alarm — with the head of Great Wall Motor calling the industry 'unhealthy.' In an interview with Chinese news outlet Sina Finance on May 23, Great Wall Motor Chairman Wei Jianjun drew parallels to China's moribund property sector and its now defunct poster child, developer Evergrande. 'An 'Evergrande-like' crisis already exists in the automotive industry,' he said. 'It just hasn't erupted yet.' A government-backed industry group has also called on companies not to 'dump' vehicles below the cost of production. In a statement, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers took a veiled swipe at BYD. 'A certain automaker has taken the lead in launching significant price cuts and many companies have followed suit, triggering a new round of 'price war' panic,' the group said. BYD dismissed Wei's comment as alarmist and said it believes in fair competition in response to CAAM's criticism. In a sign of further strain, sellers at the Beijing used car market told CNBC about a phenomenon known as 'zero mileage used cars,' which is meant to help auto manufacturers and dealers inflate sales volumes. This happens when cars are registered and plated and then marked as sold, but haven't ever been driven. Ma said he is worried about where the fierce competition leads. He told CNBC he sees the impact of the intense competition on consumers who are already shy about spending in the down economy. 'With the price dropping like this, a lot of buyers might wait,' he said.
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy
Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images Across north London, in the citadels of the liberal elite, it has been hard to hear yourself think. The roars, whoops and whistles of merry laughter; the stamping of feet on floorboards; the wheezing, the rasping coughs and the slapping of thighs… yes, Donald and Elon, not to mention Nigel and Zia, have brought a lot of innocent cheer. This is not simply about great egos falling out: a voyeuristic thrill as the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man traded insults. It also poses a more important question about whether the revolutionary surge by the populist right, which began in America, is starting to collapse, weighed down by contradictions. After all, in taking aim at President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' in the cause of fiscal sanity, Musk put his finger on the glaring ideological fissure inside today's new right – the gap between traditional fiscal conservatives who believe growth comes from low taxes balanced by tightly controlled government spending; and the performative hucksters, happy to offer whatever the voter base wants, affordable or not. I'm well aware that this flatters Elon Musk, who has been happy to have his company suck greedily at the teat of federal spending, and who only seems to have seen the light when he realised how much the withdrawal of electric vehicle subsidies in the bill would have hit Tesla. Further, Musk's threats to cancel the Dragon rocket programme on which the International Space Station depends – threats he then reversed – and his accusation about Trump's involvement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – an accusation he then deleted – suggests a man on the edge. Some have pointed to Musk's disclosures about his ketamine use. Trump simply taunted him by saying he is 'losing his mind'. Either way, Musk doesn't look or sound much like a traditional Republican. The tech-titan lobby he speaks for is desperate for lavish US government support and subsidy – and, indeed, in its fight with Chinese rivals, has a strong case for long-term federal backing. If Musk is genuinely gone for good from Trumpland, and it's hard to see a way back, Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman will have their thumbs competing for the West Wing doorbell soon. Meanwhile, Musk's Doge, strongly backed in Silicon Valley, so far seems like a damp squib – the tree has defeated the chainsaw. But let's try to put all that to one side. There is still a fundamental difference between the pork-barrel, 'spend big, promise bigger' instincts of Trump himself, using borrowed money to fling tax cuts to his hugely rich friends, and the genuine anxiety of Elon Musk about a swollen federal budget and debt. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Does this divide expose the very nature of the Maga movement? It's powered by poorer, excluded Americans who may have deep hatred of 'woke' culture, but who are interested in their own economic position – blue-collar Americans who want factories brought back home, but also want to keep their benefits, and have a deep suspicion of the political elite. The Trump bill, slashing taxes for the richest while cutting Medicare and other programmes for the poorest, shows whose side he is on; if Musk's campaign to stop the bill by encouraging a platoon of rebel Republicans to block it in the Senate were to succeed, he would be doing a favour not just to the increasingly worried bond markets but also to the Maga base. Let's turn nearer to home, where the gone, gone-back-again Zia Yusuf, the pinging Reform UK chairman who had floated a British version of Doge, offers a parallel. Reform faces two substantial policy challenges. One is 'respectability' – how far to go in an anti-migrant, race-inflected direction in order to energise its coalition? The second is economic. Like Maga, Reform has a blue-collar, working-class base and is offering not just huge tax cuts of nearly £90bn a year but also spending increases of £50bn a year on things those voters want more of, such as the NHS. It says it can pay for this with cuts of £150bn a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the numbers don't add up: 'Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.' This suggests, as with the Trump bill, that poorer Farage supporters would find their benefits under threat, while middle-class ones wouldn't get the tax cuts they wanted. Unsurprisingly, and after seeing off Reform in the Hamilton Scottish parliamentary by-election, Keir Starmer has jumped on this, comparing the Farage package to Liz Truss and accusing him of making the same bet – 'that you can spend tens of billions on tax cuts without a proper way of paying for it'. And so we come to this week and the Spending Review. Fundamentally, the fight ahead is about credibility and timing. Populists insist there are quick, almost painless short-term fixes to the long problem of low productivity and growth. They suggest you can slash taxes and simultaneously improve working-class living standards. Reeves' version of social democracy has an answer to this – the big investments announced this week in everything from nuclear power to transport connections. Invest, long-term and patiently, and the growth will return. It's not a quick fix. Voters must wait. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's former chief economist, urges Labour to have an understandable 'people strategy' and more power for the regions and nations to give voters hope while the investment arrives. Because we are not a patient lot, and that is what Reform preys on. Haldane told the Guardian: 'Nigel Farage is as close to what the country has to a tribune for the working classes. I don't think there's any politician that comes even remotely close to speaking to, and for, blue-collar, working-class Britain. I think that is just a statement of fact…' Well, if so, isn't it an extraordinary one? Farage, an ex-City trader from the suburban south, is more of a tribune than Rayner, Phillipson, Streeting or Reed, who grew up in council housing and on benefits? Able to speak to working people in a way that the government, 92 per cent of whose ministers attended comprehensive schools, can't? This points to a familiar but catastrophic problem – the strange inability of this Labour government to communicate its cause vividly. By investing wisely, it can bring growth and therefore better times, but meanwhile it needs the fire of a Kinnock, the moral weight of a Brown, the birds-from-trees persuasiveness of a Blair. Yet too often, all we hear are wooden tongues. The lessons of the past fortnight are twofold. First, the right-wing populist insurgency, both in America and here, is fragile, not omnipotent. As the Musk episode reminds us, there is a difference between radical protest and traditional conservative thinking, particularly on the role of the state. Any coalition big enough to overwhelm social democracy can come apart quickly when personalities go to war. Although they sometimes run in parallel, American politics and British politics, Brobdingnag and Lilliput, remain different in structure, electoral make-up and rhythm. One must be cautious about those equal signs: the quick peace deal between Yusuf and Farage showed a sense lacking in Washington. Still, the mocking liberal laughter wasn't all ridiculous. But the second lesson is that, even with a plausible growth strategy, social democracy needs brilliant storytellers to keep a tired and sceptical electorate onside. This is a long fight. Starmer and Reeves are in it for years to come. But they have to become far better communicators. Nigel Farage, after all, is a man used to having the last, loud laugh. [See more: Reform needs Zia Yusuf] Related
