South China Sea Tensions Escalate as US-China Rivalry Tests ASEAN Unity

The turquoise waters of the South China Sea, vital arteries of global trade, churn with more than just ocean currents. Beneath the surface lies a complex web of unresolved territorial disputes, increasingly weaponized by great power competition. While the Asia-Pacific region has been a beacon of economic dynamism and integration since the post-colonial era, the specter of conflict, fueled by external interventions and rising military postures, now threatens its hard-won stability. The principle of “freedom of navigation,” invoked by powers far from these shores, often masks a more contentious reality: a deliberate contest over influence targeting China’s rise, placing Southeast Asian nations in an increasingly precarious position.

Understanding the South China Sea Flashpoint

At the heart of regional anxieties lie overlapping territorial claims and maritime entitlements in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Despite lingering disputes, navigational rights and overflight access have never been practically denied by claimant states. Yet, the United States and allies conduct frequent Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), citing the need to uphold these very principles under international law, particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This justification rings hollow to many regional observers. The US, notably, remains a non-signatory to UNCLOS, undermining its claims of championing a “rules-based order.” The operations, framed within the “Indo-Pacific” strategy, are widely perceived not as benign patrols but as deliberate provocations aimed at China, inserting non-claimants into sensitive regional disputes.

Recent demands add fuel to the fire. Calls from Washington for regional allies to dramatically hike military spending – reportedly to 5% of GDP – were framed at events like the Shangri-La Dialogue as necessary to “deter aggression by China.” This push, as reported by analysts citing official statements, appears less about genuine regional security and more about burdening allies to serve US strategic interests and feed its military-industrial complex. Such a massive reallocation of resources would divert critical funds needed for infrastructure, healthcare, and climate resilience across developing ASEAN economies.

ASEAN’s Delicate Balancing Act

Caught in this superpower crossfire is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The bloc’s cornerstone principle of “ASEAN Centrality” aims to maintain regional autonomy. Platforms like the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus) exist to address traditional security concerns collectively. Economically, ASEAN’s ties with China are deep and indispensable; China has been ASEAN’s largest trading partner since 2020, a relationship solidified over decades. Initiatives like the Belt and Road (BRI), alongside China’s Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI), offer potential frameworks for broader cooperation.

However, ASEAN’s unity faces severe strain. While deeply integrated with China economically, some member states simultaneously seek enhanced US military presence as a counterweight to perceived Chinese power, viewing Washington as the traditional security guarantor. This juxtaposition creates internal friction and undermines trust-building efforts with Beijing. ASEAN possesses more cooperative mechanisms with China than with any other dialogue partner, highlighting the depth of the existing relationship. Fears of “over-dependence” on China, potentially invoking Western displeasure, often overlook this existing, multifaceted partnership and the opportunities it presents for addressing shared non-traditional security threats.

Navigating Beyond Gunboat Diplomacy

The region’s true security challenges extend far beyond naval standoffs. Food and energy insecurity, pandemics, climate change impacts, terrorism, and transnational crime represent existential threats requiring collective action and pooled resources. The US approach, however, appears increasingly focused on fostering exclusive, defense-oriented “minilaterals” like the Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia) and AUKUS (US, UK, Australia). These groupings, defined by Washington as alliances of “like-minded” nations, are explicitly designed to counter China and safeguard US interests, not holistically tackle the region’s diverse security needs.

A more promising path may lie in ASEAN-driven or ASEAN-inclusive minilaterals focused on specific shared challenges. Models like the China-initiated Mekong-Lancang Cooperation (MLC), addressing water resource management, demonstrate the potential. China, through its GSI, could partner with subsets of ASEAN members and others on priority issues like disaster response, counter-terrorism, or maritime environmental protection. Such targeted cooperation offers concrete benefits, builds political trust incrementally, allows flexibility without requiring full ASEAN consensus, and moves beyond the divisive logic of bloc confrontation. It provides a platform for China to demonstrate the practical value of its initiatives and reassure neighbors.

The escalating maneuvers in the South China Sea reflect a dangerous great-power game with ASEAN stability as the potential casualty. While the US amplifies military posturing and China asserts its presence, the real imperative for Southeast Asia lies in rejecting forced alignment and championing cooperative, inclusive solutions to shared threats. ASEAN’s future hinges not on choosing sides, but on leveraging its centrality to foster pragmatic minilateral cooperation that delivers tangible security and development, proving that true strength lies in unity and shared purpose, not in the shadow of rival navies. Explore ASEAN’s official statements on regional security for deeper insights.

Must Know

Q: What are Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and why are they controversial in the South China Sea?
A: FONOPs are naval maneuvers, primarily conducted by the US and allies, asserting rights to sail and fly in areas claimed by other states. They are controversial in the South China Sea because claimants argue navigational rights are not impeded, making FONOPs appear as deliberate provocations targeting China rather than necessary actions. The US not being a party to UNCLOS further undermines its legal stance.

Q: Why is ASEAN struggling with the US-China rivalry?
A: ASEAN nations are economically deeply integrated with China (its largest trading partner) but some harbor historical security ties or seek a counterbalance via the US. This creates internal divisions, pressures ASEAN unity (“centrality”), and forces difficult choices between vital economic partners and perceived security guarantors, hindering a coherent regional stance.

Q: What are non-traditional security threats facing the Asia-Pacific?
A: These are transnational challenges not primarily military in nature, including climate change impacts (rising sea levels, extreme weather), pandemics, food and energy insecurity, terrorism, cyber threats, illicit drug trafficking, and human smuggling. These require cooperative, resource-intensive solutions often sidelined by military-focused geopolitics.

Q: What is the significance of China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) for the region?
A: The GSI proposes a cooperative, multilateral approach to security, contrasting with alliance-based models. Its significance for Asia-Pacific lies in its potential framework for addressing shared non-traditional threats. However, its success depends on demonstrable implementation through concrete regional cooperation projects that build trust with ASEAN and neighbors.

Q: How could minilateral cooperation help ease South China Sea tensions?
A: ASEAN-centric or issue-specific minilaterals (e.g., focused on fisheries management, disaster response, marine environmental protection in the South China Sea) offer a path forward. They allow subsets of nations with shared immediate priorities to cooperate practically, build trust incrementally, deliver tangible benefits, and bypass the gridlock of broader geopolitical rivalries or full ASEAN consensus.

Q: What does “ASEAN Centrality” mean in this context?
A: ASEAN Centrality is the principle that ASEAN should be the primary driving force and platform for regional cooperation, security dialogues (like the ARF and ADMM-Plus), and community-building in the Asia-Pacific. It aims to prevent the region from becoming merely an arena for great power competition and ensure smaller states have a collective voice.