Beijing seizes disputed reef with troops raising flag near military base... before Filipino troops unfurl their own banner on another island amid growing South China Sea tensions
Chinese coast guard officers 'implemented maritime control' over Tiexian Reef, part of the Sandy Cay reef, in mid-April, state broadcaster CCTV said Saturday.
Photographs show four officers posing with a Chinese flag on the reef's white surface, in what state media described as a 'vow of sovereignty and jurisdiction'.
The Philippine Coast Guard on Monday responded by releasing its own photograph showing Filipino sailors holding the country's flag over the same disputed reef during an early morning mission the day before.
A Philippine statement said that a joint coast guard, navy and maritime police team on rubber dinghies had landed on the three sandbars that make up Sandy Cay.
Manila also denied that the reef was under under Beijing's control, branding the CCTV report as 'irresponsible' and claiming the status quo was unchanged.
A Chinese coast guard statement has described the Philippine landing as 'illegal' and said that officers had gone ashore 'to conduct on-site verification and enforcement measures.' It didn't specify what those steps entailed.
The Sandy Cay reef lies near Thitu Island, or Pag-asa, where the Philippines stations troops and maintains a coast guard monitoring base. There is no apparent sign that China has permanently occupied or built a structure on the reef.
The Philippines and China have been engaged in months of confrontations over the South China Sea, which Beijing claims nearly in its entirety despite an international ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.
Commodore Jay Tarriela, a Philippine coast guard spokesperson, said in a statement posted to X on Monday that its military had landed on Sandy Cay.
The statement featured video and photos, including one showing personnel displaying a Philippine flag on one of the sandbars.
'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,' the statement said.
The move came three days after the Beijing-owned media published photos of Chinese coast guard officers on Tiexian Reef in mid-April holding up a Chinese flag and cleaning up plastic bottles and other debris.
The Chinese coast guard statement on the subsequent Philippine landing said that China holds 'indisputable sovereignty' over the Spratly islands, including Tiexian Reef and the surrounding waters.
'There is no truth whatsoever to the claim of the China Coast Guard that the (Sandy Cay sandbanks) have been seized,' National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Malaya told a Monday press conference.
'It's in the interest of the People's Republic of China to use the information space to intimidate and harass,' he said, calling the Sandy Cay report a 'made-up' story that had been 'irresponsible' to disseminate.
In recent months, Beijing and Manila have blamed each other for causing what they describe as the ecological degradation of several disputed landforms in the South China Sea.
US and Philippine forces are currently conducting joint exercises that Beijing has said constitute a threat to regional stability.
Chinese warships have been spotted in Philippine waters since those bilateral 'Balikatan' exercises kicked off last week, with aircraft carrier Shandong reportedly coming within 2.23 nautical miles (about four kilometres) of northern Babuyan Island.
Last year, Beijing and Manila exchanged accusations of intentionally ramming coast guard vessels in disputed waters of the South China Sea.
The collision in August near the Sabina Shoal was their fifth maritime confrontation in a month in a longstanding rivalry.
Manila claimed China Coast Guard vessel 5205 'directly and intentionally rammed the Philippine vessel' without provocation.
The ramming damaged the 97-metre (320-foot) Teresa Magbanua, one of the Philippines' largest coast guard cutters, but no personnel were injured.
A spokesperson for China's coast guard said in a statement a Philippine ship, 'illegally stranded' at the shoal, had lifted anchor and 'deliberately rammed' a Chinese vessel.
Manila claimed China Coast Guard vessel 5205 'directly and intentionally rammed the Philippine vessel' without provocation
Beijing claims almost the entire South China Sea, including parts claimed by the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam.
Portions of the waterway, where more than £2trillion worth of trade passes annually, are believed to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits, as well as fish stocks.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 found China's sweeping claims had no legal basis, a ruling Beijing rejects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Russia rules out European troops in Ukraine as Trump makes veiled threats
Moscow threw Donald Trump's Ukraine peace initiative into disarray on Thursday, insisting it must have a veto over any postwar support for the country as its forces carried out a large-scale overnight missile barrage. In a series of hardline remarks, Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said European proposals to deploy troops in Ukraine after a settlement would amount to 'foreign intervention', which he called absolutely unacceptable for Russia. Lavrov said Russia wanted to return to discussing a framework first proposed during the initial peace talks held in Istanbul in 2022, under which Moscow and Beijing would help guarantee Ukraine's security alongside European allies – terms Kyiv considers unacceptable. 'We support the principles and security guarantees that were agreed … in April 2022,' Lavrov said. 'Anything else … is of course an absolutely futile undertaking.' European leaders are exploring possible security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, building on Trump's promise to back the country under any settlement with Russia. France, Britain and Estonia have indicated they could send troops to a postwar Ukraine, while several other nations said they might take part, though much depends on US involvement. Lavrov's comments cast doubt on the prospects for peace talks. After the recent Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, US officials said the Russian president had accepted the prospect of western security guarantees for Ukraine. But the latest statements suggest Moscow may be backing away from that understanding – or that Washington may have misinterpreted the Kremlin's position from the outset. Trump on Thursday appeared to vent his frustration at Russia's obstruction. In a post on Truth Social, the US president blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for not allowing Ukraine to 'fight back' against Russia. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia. Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND. How did that work out? … Interesting times ahead!!!' Trump wrote. Trump's veiled threats against Russia will be welcomed in Kyiv and European capitals, though the US leader has previously backed away from imposing sanctions or boosting support for Ukraine. Lavrov also poured cold water on the prospect of a summit between the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which has been touted by Trump. Lavrov said a bilateral meeting at the highest level would be possible only 'if all issues requiring discussion are thoroughly prepared'. He suggested that Putin would meet Zelenskyy only to accept Russia's maximalist conditions, which would entail Ukraine's capitulation. Russia's veteran foreign minister further questioned whether Zelenskyy had the legitimacy to sign any future peace accord, parroting a familiar Kremlin line that portrays Ukraine's leadership as illegitimate. Despite a flurry of diplomacy in recent days between Trump and his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, the path to peace remains uncertain as Moscow has shown little willingness to climb down from its maximalist demands. Even so, the White House on Wednesday continued to strike a positive tone. 'President Trump and his national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials towards a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,' a White House spokesperson told Fox News. Speaking to foreign correspondents in Kyiv, Zelenskyy, who has agreed to meet Putin, said he would like a 'strong reaction' from Washington if the Russian leader was not willing to sit down for a bilateral meeting with him soon. 'I responded immediately to the proposal for a bilateral meeting: we are ready. But what if the Russians are not ready?' Zelenskyy said in comments released on Thursday from a briefing with reporters in Kyiv a day earlier. As uncertainty over peace talks persisted, Russia launched one of its heaviest bombardments in weeks. The Ukrainian military said Moscow had fired 574 drones and 40 missiles in a major aerial assault that struck western regions, killing at least one person and injuring 15. Ukraine's foreign minister said a major US electronics manufacturer was among the targets. 'The message is clear: Russia is not looking for peace. Russia is attacking American business in Ukraine, humiliating American business,' said Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine. Ukraine, for its part, has stepped up drone attacks on Russian infrastructure supporting the war, with strikes on oil refineries pushing wholesale gasoline prices in Russia to record highs.
Channel 4
3 hours ago
- Channel 4
US factory in Ukraine hit in wave of Russian drone and missile strikes
Russia has launched another massive drone and missile attacks on Ukraine, killing one person and injuring dozens more in cities far from the front line. Despite the flurry of diplomatic efforts to end the war, Moscow launched around 40 missiles and almost 600 drones during the night. Among the destroyed buildings, an American-owned electronics factory near the Hungarian border which was set on fire by a missile strike.
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
David Lammy's attempt to stop the Royal Navy transiting the Taiwan Strait is a disgrace
Freedom of navigation is one of the international principles that keeps our planet running. The sea connects everything, and almost all of our trade comes and goes on it. Freedom of navigation and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) which defines it, is therefore a fundamental part of that fluid, never-ending organism on which we depend. Deny it, or break it, and our economies are at risk. China in particular has long attempted to deny this fundamental principle on which so much depends, and much of the rest of international maritime law as well. Beijing's infamous 'Nine Dash Line' claim to own most of the South China Sea was rejected at the Hague, but it nonetheless acts as if the claim were reality. Chinese warships and coastguard vessels harass, ride off, dazzle and irradiate ships of neighbouring countries every day, and were so aggressive in pursuing a Philippine supply ship recently that a Chinese destroyer smashed off the bow of a Chinese coastguard cutter pursuing the same target, killing several sailors. China also persistently acts as though it has some right to forbid foreign warships from going through the Taiwan Strait – another claim with no basis whatsoever in international law. Today's British government is normally slavishly adherent to international law, but there are exceptions. Reportedly the Foreign Office, led by David Lammy, is attempting to stop the Royal Navy from detaching a frigate from our Carrier Strike Group – currently in the Pacific – and sending it on a trip which would take it through the Taiwan Strait. Planners in the Joint and Maritime Headquarters will be rolling their eyes now and saying something along the lines of, 'Didn't we brief this over a year ago, why is it flaring up now?' Whenever we have a warship needing to go through the Taiwan Strait to get where it is going, we send it through. Not doing so is simply to accept that China is allowed to violate international law whenever it chooses. We sent HMS Spey, our Pacific show-the-flag patrol ship, through the Strait two months ago. It got China's attention, of course it did, but there was barely a whisper here. That's because it was Navy business-as-usual. But add the Strike Group to the equation and it suddenly becomes interesting to everyone, and quite late in the day it seems. So, some perspective. The Taiwan Strait is 70 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. This is the same as Tower Bridge to Stone Henge. It's not the Suez Canal. It's not even the Dover Strait, which at 21 nautical miles is narrow enough to slightly complicate things – there is no international water in the middle, only British and French territorial waters. The Taiwan Strait is over three times wider and is therefore mostly international waters – the 'High Seas' – in the same way the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is. The right to operate ships through there is immutable. And it's busy – 1,200 ships a week transit through it. But all China has to do, it seems, is rattle its sabre and David Lammy would have us running scared. Those who are happy to appease China normally now take the conversation in one of two directions: 'What if this escalated' and 'Why is the Navy even there?' That last one then branches off into 'colonialism' or 'The Navy should be in the Channel stopping the boats'. The escalation idea is a red herring. China would gain nothing from sinking a British warship and would cause itself all sorts of trouble. Very likely it would find itself unable to import iron ore from Australia, to name just one likely result, and China really, really needs Australian ore. There will be cross words – there always are – but the spectacle of a British government so frightened of words that it will give up its basic rights is a pathetic one. As for the second point – all warships should be back in the UK – hopefully my opening statement on how the whole world is connected by sea answers that. I might also point out that all the Navy could do in the Channel would be pick up migrants and deliver them to hotels even faster than the Border Force and the RNLI are already doing. Meanwhile in the Taiwan Strait, China's strategy is clear – to normalise its illegal claims. Any time a warship abandons plans to run through the Strait, that is a step to the world where indeed, China owns that piece of international water. It seems to me that the way to absolutely guarantee trouble in the long run is to give in to their demands. We should also note that this is not an American-style 'Freedom of Navigation Operation', a FONOP carried out for no other reason than to prove they can. HMS Richmond won't depart from the task group and dash through the Strait, flags flying, guns trained, and then rejoin. She'll be detached for a decent period of time and have sound operational and defence diplomacy reasons for taking this route. In other words, it's not an operation at all, it's just being 'on passage'. Sure, they will be closed up in the operations room onboard as they go through, but mainly because if China does come to say hello it will offer tremendous intelligence gathering opportunities. To sum up, the whole point of deploying a Strike Group – or any warship – is to communicate resolve and willingness to back the rules-based international order. Sending a ship and then telling it to back off communicates exactly the opposite. This will have been years in the planning, probably since HMS Lancaster did exactly the same four years ago. Showing weakness and backing off in the face of unreasonable demands leads to disaster, as events in Ukraine have shown only too clearly.
