logo
China gets recklessly violent in the South China Sea

China gets recklessly violent in the South China Sea

News1817 hours ago
Hong Kong, August 19 (ANI): Two Chinese warships collided in the South China Sea on 11 August, as the country worryingly ramps up pressure on and bullying of the Philippines. The incident occurred within 10 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal, which lies within the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ) but which China illegally seized in 2012. The embarrassing incident saw the Type 056 corvette '3104' from the China Coast Guard (CCG) ram bow-first into the side of the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) Type 052D destroyer Guilin ('164'). The collision completely stove in the bow of the CCG corvette, and several Chinese coastguardsmen had been standing on the bow of the vessel just before the accident. Considering that another Chinese vessel conducted a grid search in the area immediately after the collision, it can be assumed that at least one, and possibly several, Chinese sailors were lost. The PCG boat offered to render help, but it was rebuffed by China. At the time, the two Chinese vessels were chasing and harassing BRP Suluan ('4406'), a much smaller 321-tonne vessel of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Suluan had been manoeuvring away from the chasing CCG vessel to avoid its deployed water cannon. The Philippine vessel had been responding to messages for help from Philippine fishermen, as China performed hazardous manoeuvres and harassed them as part of its blockade of the illegally occupied Scarborough Shoal. Importantly, the whole incident was caught by the PCG on video from start to finish, so China cannot deny the facts of the accident. Nonetheless, this did not prevent Beijing and its state-controlled media apparatus from suppressing the news of the self-inflicted collision from its own domestic readership. It used carefully edited video clips or photos to portray events inaccurately. As for international audiences, China's propaganda machine went into overdrive to push its own false narrative. As just one example, the Chinese Global Times tabloid gathered a coterie of 'experts" to present a united story. One of these so-called Chinese experts claimed, 'The Philippines is clearly the provocateur, yet it has carefully planned and prepared various video materials each time, attempting to portray itself as a victim in the international arena to garner sympathy." In other words, he was claiming that the Philippines had set up its cameras and 'orchestrated" the whole accident and 'force" the Chinese ships to collide! In yet another moronic claim, the article blamed the small Philippine vessel for dicing with death by taking on China. Far more accurately, the Philippine Department of National Defence described the incident as 'atrocious and inane behaviour" on China's part. The Philippine position was soon backed up by official statements from the likes of Australia, Japan and the USA, all accusing China of reckless and dangerous behaviour at sea. This deadly incident brings into sharp relief a number of important points. Ray Powell, Director of SeaLight and Project Lead for Project Myoushu at Stanford University's Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, discerned eight critical points that need highlighting. Firstly, Powell said, this was a 'major escalation by China in an ongoing and increasingly high-stakes gray zone war over the South China Sea". Previously, China has relied upon CCG 'law enforcement" vessels and maritime militia – sailors moonlighting as fishermen but actually contracted to serve government purposes – to stake its claims. The fact that a PLAN vessel was fully engaged in harassing the PCG vessel, therefore, represents a very serious escalation. Secondly, Powell views this as 'the culmination of China's 13-year takeover of Scarborough Shoal". In mid-2024, China began enforcing a 25-30nm exclusion zone around Scarborough Shoal, even though it lies within the Philippine EEZ. Thirdly, this was 'a bellicose message that Beijing is no longer tolerating Philippine vessels approaching the shoal at all". Philippine fishermen have used this shoal for innumerable generations, plus the Permanent Court of Arbitration confirmed in its 2016 ruling that China has no territorial claims there. Indeed, that case saw the court of state that China, 'through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing" there. In an official statement, Grand Commodore Jay Tarriela, spokesman for the PCG, fingered the real culprit. 'The Philippine Coast Guard's maritime patrols, including the BRP Suluan's mission to support local fishermen, are fully in line with international law and occur within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. In contrast, China's aggressive presence in this area is illegal, as ruled by the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration award, which invalidated Beijing's expansive claims and affirmed the Philippines' rights in its EEZ. China's continued disregard for this binding ruling only underscores its violation of UNCLOS." This latter acronym is a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; Beijing is a signatory, but it paradoxically breaks its rules. Next up, Powell believes this collision reflected 'Beijing's growing maritime militancy. The behaviour of China's destroyer in particular illustrates this fact." The destroyer's captain, perhaps at the urging of the political commissar aboard, felt obliged to intervene in a supposedly law enforcement matter. Even after the collision, the destroyer continued pursuing the 44m-long Philippine patrol boat, instead of rendering aid to its compatriots. In fact, the less manoeuvrable Chinese destroyer was not far from slicing through the Philippine vessel either, as it attempted to close a pincer. Such violent disregard for safety at sea indicates a hardening stance from China, as Beijing becomes more abusive in its attempts to steal territory from the Philippines. The fifth point that Powell made was how this was 'a reminder that the Philippine Coast Guard routinely faces extreme peril with impressive courage and professionalism". Overmatched in vessel numbers and size, and facing such violent behaviour, the PCG is not cowed. Powell even declared the PCG 'may be the bravest coast guard on the planet today!" Continuing on, the Director of SeaLight said this incident 'is a testament to the plight of the Philippines and the disintegration of the rules-based order that kept the world relatively peaceful for the past 80 years". Just as has occurred in the Crimea and Ukraine, China is a hostile, imperial power attempting to steal territory from a smaller and weaker nation. The seventh point noted by Powell is the absolute absurdity of China's state propaganda. The country roundly blamed the Philippines for the accident and even demanded compensation for the ineptitude of the Chinese captains. Poking holes in this Chinese narrative, Collin Koh, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, noted: 'The video only lays bare PRC's aggressive behaviour in a foreign country's exclusive economic zone. And that aggressive behaviour was the cause of the fratricidal collision between the PLA Navy and CCG ships. You only have yourself to blame…" Tarriela said it was 'absurd for China to claim the Philippines is provoking collisions when common sense – and the sheer size disparity – makes that impossible". Was a 44.5m-long Philippine vessel provoking a Chinese 90m corvette and a 157m destroyer? China's claims are laughable. 'Video evidence shows the Chinese ships chasing the smaller Philippine vessel at high speeds, leading to their own mishap – not any 'reckless manoeuvres' from the Philippines," Tarriela pointed out. Finally, Powell said, 'This is a sobering reminder that China's belligerence is bringing us perilously close to the brink. It's really not hard to imagine how this could have gone quite a different direction. Had the destroyer struck the much smaller Philippine ship instead of its own, how many Filipinos would have died? And if your coast guard ship is rammed by a destroyer while approaching a maritime feature that has essentially been stolen from you, does that constitute an 'armed attack'?" Indeed, would such an incident invoke the application of the Philippine-US Mutual Defence Treaty? Incidentally, in a show of force, the US destroyer USS Higgins was in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal on 13 August. Tarriela also highlighted how Filipino fishermen have been adversely affected by Chinese blockades and harassment in their traditional fishing grounds. The Philippine government must therefore support them with supplies. 'These are not scripted actors but real people whose livelihoods depend on these waters, unlike China's well-documented use of maritime militia – disguised as civilian fishing fleets – to assert control and intimidate others in the region. Manila's mission was humanitarian, not provocative, and even offered medical aid to the Chinese crew after their self-inflicted collision, which was ignored." Furthermore, Tarriela raised another point that Powell did not have on his list – the reckless seamanship shown by China. 'China must admit to the world that the collision between its own PLAN destroyer and CCG cutter was entirely the result of unprofessional, reckless behaviour on their part, including high-speed pursuits, dangerous blocking attempts and blatant violations of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG). Experts have pointed to poor coordination between Chinese forces as a key factor, with the destroyer slamming into its own coast guard ship while trying to intimidate the BRP Suluan. This incident highlights Beijing's disregard for maritime safety and escalatory tactics, not any Philippine malice." The at-sea collision is very embarrassing for China. Indeed, it calls into question the seamanship of Chinese forces. Not only that, but it demonstrates that the CCG is not there at all to maintain safety at sea, but rather to threaten others dangerously and to enforce illegal Chinese territorial claims. Following the humiliating crash, CCG spokesperson Gan Yu said the coast guard had taken necessary measures in accordance with the law, including monitoring and blocking, to expel Philippine vessels. Without a trace of irony, Gan claimed China's operations were 'professional, standardised and legitimate". One shudders to think of the consequences if Chinese law enforcement considers such reckless seamanship as 'professional". Unfortunately, this was the most serious incident in the South China Sea since 17 June 2024, when a Philippine sailor suffered severe injury after Chinese forces blocked a resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal, where the Philippines maintains a garrison aboard the beached ship BRP Sierra Madre. Unfortunately, this latest serious incident near Scarborough Shoal portends growing risk in the South China Sea. What is more, after the loss of face engendered by its reckless seamanship and bullying, China can be expected to further up the ante. After handing the Philippines a moral victory, it will now want to sternly signal a position of strength to Manila. This creates a dilemma, however, because next time it may be a Chinese ship colliding with a Philippine one and causing loss of life. The Philippines and the USA must be ready for such a scenario. (ANI)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What is China's ‘Early Harvest' Proposal for Border Talks That Modi Govt Has Now Conceded?
What is China's ‘Early Harvest' Proposal for Border Talks That Modi Govt Has Now Conceded?

The Wire

time8 minutes ago

  • The Wire

What is China's ‘Early Harvest' Proposal for Border Talks That Modi Govt Has Now Conceded?

This decision represents a fundamental departure from India's long-standing position that the border dispute must be resolved as a comprehensive package deal, as established in the 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles. New Delhi: The Modi government's decision to agree to establish an expert group for exploring China's 'early harvest' proposal in the recent India-China Special Representatives talks represents a reversal of India's longstanding position that betrays decades of careful diplomacy and strategic thinking. This concession – to explore fast-tracking a settlement of the India-China boundary in the Sikkim region – comes at a time when China has been systematically using the border dispute as leverage while offering cosmetic solutions that primarily benefit Beijing's strategic objectives. What are the origins and evolution of China's 'Early Harvest' proposal? Even though the 'early harvest' in Sikkim idea had been broached by Beijing with Indian officials earlier, it first surfaced publicly in 2017 when Chinese Ambassador Luo Zhaohui cryptically mentioned it during a think tank event at New Delhi. This was a couple of months before the 2017 Doklam standoff, when Indian soldiers had crossed from Sikkim into Bhutan to stop the Chinese from constructing a road to the sensitive Jhampheri ridge. 'Early harvest' involves exclusively settling the boundary in Sikkim –a proposal which the then foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had described as the Chinese equivalent of saying a 'low-hanging fruit'. This would separate the Sikkim boundary from the three other sectors on the disputed Sino-India border: western, middle and eastern. Chinese military analyst senior colonel Zhao Xiaozhou later clarified in 2017 that the proposal essentially sought to replace the 1890 Great Britain-China convention with a new agreement signed directly between China and India. 'For China, early harvest means, we want to have a new agreement with India, because the 1890 convention was signed between Great Britain and China,' he explained, adding that China wanted to 'start from the easiest, that is what we call early harvest' in the Sikkim sector. China formally submitted these proposals to external affairs minister S. Jaishankar during his meeting with Wang Yi in Beijing in August 2019. After the 22nd dialogue of the Special Representatives on the boundary issue between Ajit Doval and Wang Yi in New Delhi in December 2019, the Chinese statement on the talks said the two sides should 'promote early harvest consultations'. There was no mention of such proposals in the statement from the Indian side. New Delhi instead linked the proposal to the simultaneous demarcation of the middle sector in Uttarakhand, in line with the 2005 agreement. What has been India's historical resistance to the proposal? What are its strategic concerns? For years, India consistently rejected China's 'early harvest' approach, recognizing it as a strategic trap. In 2019, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal articulated the core problem: 'China's early harvest proposal violates the 2005 agreement on the guidelines and parameters for resolving the boundary issue as it clearly says that it has to be a package deal. This is the usual Chinese way of walking out of agreements. This early harvest proposal relates to the Sikkim border which is the only one which is settled. So where is the early harvest for India in this? On the contrary, China will seek to settle the tri-junction in its favour through this proposal which is unacceptable. Is China ready to accept tri-junction as per the Indian position?' Indian officials recognised that the Sikkim proposal was 'not so simple, as any Indian agreement on demarcation will be used by Beijing to settle the boundary with Bhutan with an eye towards the Doklam plateau'. A former Indian Army chief warned that "if India settles Sikkim, where it dominates both Chumbi Valley and Finger Area up in the north, then China will expand its Chumbi Valley area and increase pressure on the Siliguri corridor in West Bengal". The strategic concern was that settling the Sikkim border would directly impact the India-China-Bhutan trijunction at Batang La, potentially allowing China to extend its reach to the Jhampheri ridge, from where "the entire Siliguri corridor becomes extremely vulnerable to the PLA. The lights of Gangtok are visible from Jhampheri ridge," as one China expert noted. Why has the Modi government conceded now? Despite years of principled resistance, the August 19, 2025 MEA statement reveals a dramatic policy reversal. The Modi government has now agreed to 'Setting up an Expert Group, under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), to explore Early Harvest in boundary delimitation in the India-China border areas'. In the statement issued after Wang Yi's meeting with Modi, the Chinese side said that 'on the boundary issue, new consensus was reached on… initiating boundary demarcation negotiations in areas where conditions are met'. This U-turn by the Modi government appears driven by multiple pressure points. Trump's tariff war against India, imposing 50% tariffs on Indian goods and threatening further penalties over Russian oil purchases, has made India more vulnerable to China. The Modi government appears keen to seek friendly ties with China, at Beijing's own terms, despite the obvious strategic risks. Indian officials claim that China has reportedly promised to address India's concerns regarding rare earths, fertilisers and tunnel boring machines. None of these have figured in any of the official statements but these economic carrots, essentially reversing the coercive actions taken by Beijing, have led to a major strategic concession by the Modi government. What are the strategic risks of this concession? This decision represents a fundamental departure from India's long-standing position that the border dispute must be resolved as a comprehensive package deal, as established in the 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles. By agreeing to explore 'early harvest' options, the Modi government has legitimised China's piecemeal approach that violates this foundational principle. The move is particularly dangerous given China's expanding claims against Bhutan, including new territorial demands in the eastern part of the Himalayan kingdom that emerged around 2020. Any resolution of the Sikkim sector boundary without addressing these broader strategic concerns will only embolden China's aggressive posture toward India's Himalayan neighbours, security experts feel. Moreover, the agreement comes at a time when China has been systematically strengthening its border infrastructure and military capabilities. The PLA has established itself firmly in the Doklam plateau and explored alternative routes to reach the Jhampheri ridge. The PLA's enhanced capabilities, and increasing superiority over India, make any territorial concessions even more strategically problematic. To conclude, the Modi government's decision to explore China's 'early harvest' proposal represents a dangerous precedent that abandons decades of careful strategic thinking for short-term economic and political relief. By legitimising China's divide-and-conquer approach to the border dispute, the Modi government has weakened India's negotiating position and potentially compromised the strategic interests. There is no 'early harvest' for India in this arrangement, only a reversal of its longstanding policy disguised as diplomatic progress. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement

Bill Gates meets Japanese PM to discuss the country's commitment towards global health
Bill Gates meets Japanese PM to discuss the country's commitment towards global health

United News of India

time35 minutes ago

  • United News of India

Bill Gates meets Japanese PM to discuss the country's commitment towards global health

New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) Bill Gates, chairman of the Gates Foundation, met Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba at his office in Tokyo today. Reportedly, Gates visit was intended for discussion on Japan's continued commitment to global health. Gates posted on LinkedIn "Thank you, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, for the opportunity to discuss your continued commitment to global health." "Japan's support for global health institutions like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund has given children access to lifesaving vaccines and treatments. Now more than ever, we need Japan's leadership and expertise to build a safer, healthier world." the post added. UNI SAS SS More News SC grants four weeks to states to respond on rising crimes against women 19 Aug 2025 | 11:55 PM New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted all States and Union Territories four weeks to file their replies in a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting the rising cases of crimes against women, especially sexual offences. see more.. China readout of outcomes between FM Wang Yi, and NSA Ajit Doval and EAM S Jaishankar 19 Aug 2025 | 11:36 PM New Delhi/Beijing, Aug 19 (UNI) China and India arrived at a 10-point consensus following the 24th meeting of the Special Representatives on the China-India Boundary Question between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. see more.. Bill Gates meets Japanese PM to discuss the country's commitment towards global health 19 Aug 2025 | 11:26 PM New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) Bill Gates, chairman of the Gates Foundation, met Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba at his office in Tokyo today. see more.. Shah highlights shift in disaster management strategy under Modi Govt 19 Aug 2025 | 11:18 PM New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) Union Home Minister Amit Shah today chaired a meeting of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the topic of 'Disaster Management and Capacity Building', where he emphasized the notable transformation in India's disaster response strategy under the Narendra Modi government. see more.. India, China to set up expert group on boundary delimitation, resume direct flights, re-open border trade routes 19 Aug 2025 | 11:12 PM New Delhi, Aug 19 (UNI) Marking a major forward movement in resolving the boundary question, India and China have agreed to set up an expert group tasked with exploring early solutions for boundary delimitation. The two nations have also agreed to resume direct flight connectivity, re-open border trade routes and also facilitate trade and investment between the two countries. see more..

'It's Possible That He...': Trump Days After Meeting Putin At Alaska Summit
'It's Possible That He...': Trump Days After Meeting Putin At Alaska Summit

India.com

time36 minutes ago

  • India.com

'It's Possible That He...': Trump Days After Meeting Putin At Alaska Summit

After meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Alaska Summit and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, US President Donald Trump said he believed Putin's action would be clear in the next couple of weeks. In an interview with Fox News' Fox & Friends program, Trump said that Putin and others are tired of the ongoing conflict. He added that the Russian President's actions would become clear in the next couple of weeks, stating, 'It's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal.' Trump earlier threatened more sanctions on Russia and nations that buy its oil if Putin does not make peace. Trump-Putin Meeting Trump and Putin are had conversation along with their top officials on Friday. Putin is accompanied by foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told CNN. Trump is joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff. As per the ANI, White House stated that Trump was "Pursuing Peace," and that the meeting between the two leaders was "Historic". (Read More: Trump's Aide Lindsey Graham Makes Big Claim, Says Russian President Putin Visited Alaska To Save India From 50% Tariff)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store