China Warns US Ally With Show of Force
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
China asserted its sovereignty over a disputed reef in the contested South China Sea by conducting military and coast guard patrols on Saturday—a claim the Philippines denied.
Newsweek has emailed both the Chinese and Philippine militaries for further comment.
Why It Matters
China has claimed sovereignty over most of the South China Sea, overlapping the territorial claims of other regional countries—including the Philippines, a mutual defense treaty ally of the United States—and often leading to standoffs and clashes between their maritime forces.
The Chinese patrols were conducted around Huangyan Dao [Island], a fishing ground known in the Philippines as Bajo de Masinloc. The reef, under China's control since 2012, lies closer to the Philippines' Luzon Island than to the nearest Chinese island province, Hainan.
While the South China Sea reef lies within Manila's internationally recognized 230-mile-wide exclusive economic zone, Beijing asserted jurisdiction over the surrounding waters by releasing a list of 16 base points connected by straight baselines in November 2024.
What To Know
In a statement released on Saturday, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Southern Theater Command announced that it had conducted what it called "combat readiness patrols" in the Chinese territorial waters and airspace around Huangyan Dao and its surrounding areas.
The Chinese military command, which is oriented toward the South China Sea, claimed that its assigned air and naval forces have been "continuously" strengthening patrols around the reef to further bolster "relevant maritime and airspace control and management" since May.
The China Coast Guard also claimed on Saturday that it had conducted "law enforcement patrols" near Huangyan Dao. China operates the world's largest maritime law enforcement fleet, with over 150 vessels each weighing more than 1,000 tons, according to the Pentagon.
During its intensified patrols around the reef last month, the China Coast Guard conducted what it called "tracking, warning, intercepting, and driving away operations" in accordance with China's laws and regulations to strengthen its management and control of the area.
An aerial view of Huangyan Dao, also known in the Philippines as Bajo de Masinloc, in the South China Sea on February 18, 2025.
An aerial view of Huangyan Dao, also known in the Philippines as Bajo de Masinloc, in the South China Sea on February 18, 2025.Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad, spokesperson for the Philippine Navy, said no Chinese combat readiness patrols were observed around the reef or within the Philippine exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea, newspaper Manila Standard reported on Sunday.
The Philippines refers to the portion of the South China Sea within its exclusive economic zone as the West Philippine Sea. However, the Chinese government maintains that "South China Sea" is the common geographical name accepted by countries around the world.
The Philippine spokesperson revealed that, as of Saturday morning local time, two Chinese coast guard ships and six Chinese maritime militia vessels were spotted at the reef, along with four Vietnamese fishing boats and three Taiwanese vessels, according to the report.
What People Are Saying
The Chinese People's Liberation Army Southern Theater Command said: "The move [patrol] is aimed at resolutely safeguarding China's sovereignty and security, as well as upholding peace and stability in the South China Sea region."
The China Coast Guard said: "The operation aims to firmly safeguard China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests."
Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad, spokesperson for the Philippine Navy, said: "No activity of PLA-N [People's Liberation Army Navy] was monitored. News like these are all part of information shaping operations by the [Chinese] Communist Party to address any internal dissent or shape the international discourse to their favor."
What Happens Next
The Philippines is likely to conduct further exercises in the South China Sea with the U.S. and other allies to counter China's military and coast guard presence in the disputed region.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvard battle is Trump's ‘Mao moment': lessons from China's state-sanctioned university crackdown
During the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong pushed for the closure of Chinese universities, seeing higher education as little more than a breeding ground for counterrevolutionary bourgeois intellectuals. After closing for a period, China's universities reopened on a limited basis from 1970, with selection criteria based on class background, revolutionary devotion and connections to the communist party. It was not until 1977 that the national university entrance exam (gaokao) was reinstated and a merit system put back in place. This period had been China's 'Mao moment' in higher education, but Mao's historic mistake appears to be repeating itself in the US today. Imperial China had a sophisticated system of examinations (kējǔ, 科举) for citizens to reach the status of civil servant, or mandarin. These tests date back to the 7th century, under the Sui dynasty (581-618), and lasted until 1905. Depending on the period, the exams lasted from one to three days. Candidates were locked in a room, identified by a number, and their tests were copied by a third party so that their identity could not be recognised by their handwriting. All this was to ensure a fair and impartial contest for candidates whose futures were at stake. MIT professor Yasheng Huang says that if he had to highlight one fundamental difference between China and other civilisations, it would be the existence of these imperial examinations. He adds that they were both a blessing and a curse. He also points out that they are directly to blame for the state's ongoing monopolisation of human talent in China. Put simply, the best and brightest became mandarins under this system. By depriving society of access to the best talent, the state also denied its people the chance of having any kind of organised religion, commerce or intelligentsia. For Huang, the imperial examinations were a significant cause of the decline of collective social action in China, one of the distinctive features of a civil society. This is reflected in the title of his 2024 book 'The Rise and Fall of the EAST', where EAST is not a compass point but an acronym for China's defining features: Exams, Autocracy, Stability and Technology. 'The 'Chinese phenomenon' is why this ancient civilization with a long history of more than 2,000 years has declined in the modern era. Why is it lagging behind the modern nations of the world?' This question was posed in 1991 by the Chinese politician and intellectual Wang Huning, in his book America against America. Ever since Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978, it became increasingly clear to China that its progress depended on raising its population's education level, especially after the ravages of the Maoist Cultural Revolution. To do this, China created the C9 League in 2009. Composed of nine universities and similar to the American Ivy League, its members account for 10% of China's national research budget, 3% of its total number of researchers, and 20% of published studies. Leer más: When I spoke of 'barbarians' in my 2024 book China for the New Barbarians,(Nola editores, 2024), I did so to call attention to the fact that there is a certain ignorance when the West speaks about China. However, the Trump Administration's ongoing attacks against Harvard, one of the world's most renowned universities, can only be described as barbaric. Last week Harvard was barred from enrolling international students on the grounds of alleged leftist indoctrination and anti-Semitism. It has also revoked student visas and, as if that were not enough, it has demanded that universities hand over information on students who have participated in student protests. What the Trump Administration wants is for Harvard to cease foreign admissions, a move that would lock out 6,500 students. In addition to denying Harvard access to top international talent, it would also inflict enormous damage to the ever-weakening concept of the 'American spirit', made up of democratic values, freedom, generosity, equality of opportunity, universal education, courage and leadership. The measure has been temporarily blocked by a district judge, though this may not count for much – the Trump Administration has already set a precedent of disputing or ignoring court orders. The situation is so dire that Jerome Powell – the chair of the Federal Reserve who was appointed by Trump during his first term – has been unable to keep quiet. Addressing Princeton University students at the May 2025 commencement speech, he stressed that American universities are the envy of the world, and a crucial asset for the US to continue to lead in scientific innovation and economic dynamism. Powell has himself been a target of Trump's criticism. In response to Powell's refusal to lower interest rates – which he has kept between 4.25% and 4.5% to contain inflation – the president has called him 'Mr Too Late' and 'Major loser'. Leer más: The world watches in astonishment as the US federal administration attempts to dismantle the country's university system, which for decades has been one of the US' poles of attraction, and a bulwark of its economic and technological success. This was perhaps best expressed by Oriaku, a Nigerian taxi driver I met back in the nineties who ferried me and my colleague Juan Gordon around Lagos. He told us about his dream of sending his children to Harvard, and when Juan commented that this would be expensive he wisely replied 'if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.' 'Harvard, Harvard,' Oriaku continued, 'that's the only reason I work myself to the bone.' Moves are already being made elsewhere to pick up the slack and welcome academics. The Hong Kong government, for instance, has called on its universities to attract the foreign talent that the US now wants to reject. Meanwhile, the Chinese can only smirk: they already lived through Mao's brutal onslaught against their universities during the Cultural Revolution and know that it will bring no benefits. America is living through its own 'Mao moments', but we may soon be able rename them 'Trump moments'. Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos. Lee mas: 3 ways the government can silence opinions it disagrees with, without using censorship Can Trump strip Harvard of its charitable status? Scholars of nonprofit law and accounting describe the obstacles in his way Harvard is suing the White House: here's what Trump hopes to achieve by targeting universities Félix Valdivieso no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's proposed ‘super embassy poses super risk' to security, Tories claim
China's proposed 'super embassy poses a super risk', the Tories have claimed as they warned the project risks compromising communications infrastructure serving the City of London. More than a thousand demonstrators took to the streets of central London earlier this year to protest against the proposed embassy. Ministers are expected to make a final decision on the redevelopment plans at the historic former site of the Royal Mint, after it was rejected by the local council, Tower Hamlets. Speaking in the Commons, shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart accused the Government of being 'too weak' to block the plans. He said: 'The Government's own cyber experts, Innovate UK, have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. 'The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super embassy poses a super risk. 'Yet the Deputy Prime Minister's office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. 'So perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up – is the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist Party or has the Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner) got it wrong?' Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden replied: 'When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will of course engage properly and always bear in mind our own national security considerations.' He also accused Tory governments of opting to 'withdraw' from engaging with China for a number of years after they had previously sought a 'golden era' with Beijing. A spokesperson for Innovate UK said it 'has not raised any concerns', adding: 'Innovate UK does not have responsibility for cyber security.' Comments referred to by Mr Burghart are understood to have been made in a personal capacity. Mr Burghart went on to say: 'At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already knows that this site is a security risk; it's a security risk to the City of London and through it our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. 'Second, the Government has the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why is this Government too weak to act?' In his reply, Mr McFadden said: 'A decision on this application will be taken in full consideration of our national security considerations. That is always part of this and it is part of our engagement with China and with other countries.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves flew to China in January to meet with the country's leaders and set out a path towards further investment into Britain. Elsewhere in Cabinet Office questions, Mr McFadden said the Civil Service should be more representative of the UK and speak with 'all the accents of the country'. This came in response to Labour MP for Dudley, Sonia Kumar, who said: 'I welcome the relocation of the Civil Service across the country and with a recent study showing that Dudley has high levels of economic inactivity, what reassurances can (he) give me that young people in Dudley want every opportunity to build their career in the Civil Service, whether that's training, apprenticeships, or any mentorships?' Mr McFadden replied: '(Ms Kumar) will not be surprised to hear my strong enthusiasm for greater employment opportunities for young people in the Black Country. 'When we made the announcement last week about the relocation, we also announced a new apprentice scheme because we don't just have to change location, we have to change recruitment patterns too if we're really going (to) get that Civil Service that speaks with all the accents of the country.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked for reassurance that 'no Cabinet Office ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year', because 'controversial Ulster rap band' Kneecap remain part of the festival's line-up. Mr McFadden replied: 'I will not be going to Glastonbury, but I'm very much looking forward to going to see Bruce Springsteen at Anfield Stadium on Saturday night.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: What 'China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the "China shock," that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial "Liberation Day" duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
