In recent months, Chinese Coast Guard vessels, responsible for policing maritime areas under Chinese jurisdiction, have repeatedly obstructed Filipino vessels responsible for resupply missions to support troops stationed on the Sierra Madre – a deliberately beached, decrepit old warship that embodies Filipino claims to a small, uninhabited, but fiercely contested reef in the South China Sea, close to the disputed Nansha or Spratley Island Chain. As tensions rise, the United States (U.S.) has sought to remind China of its longstanding pledge to defend the Philippines in the event of an attack, but why does it matter?

The South China Sea is pivotal to supply chains in every industry, all around the world. More than $5 trillion worth, or 60% of the world’s total maritime commerce, passes through the South China Sea each year. Wheat and grain, petrol and diesel, the mobile phones we scroll and the electronic chips that power them, the cars we drive and the tools and machinery that makes building them possible all pass through this area of sea bordering the Southeast Asia mainland.

Any potential conflict risks disrupting global trade, and if this happens, governments around the world will face angry citizens demanding answers as to why they can’t purchase their favourite products and services. This means that incidents such as Chinese Coast Guards confronting Filipino vessels using a military grade-laser, firing water cannons, and more recently a series of minor collisions between the two sides’ vessels are deserving of our attention.

So, what’s the story of the Philippines and China territorial conflict, and why are the United States so keen to get involved? Below, we offer an analysis on the origins of the territorial dispute, the two sides competing perspectives, and future prospects.

Neither China or the Philippines are willing to concede anything in their competing territorial claims to the South China Sea

Home to an abundance of untapped natural resources, including vast oil and gas reserves, it is unsurprising the South China Sea is the site of a geopolitical dispute amassing over half-a-dozen countries. With neither China nor the Philippines willing to concede anything in their competing territorial claims, and the U.S. reiterating its commitment to enforce its Mutual Defence treaty with the Philippines in the event of an attack, the margin for error in avoiding a regional conflict is increasingly small.

The China-Philippines territorial dispute centres on international law, specifically the 1982 UNCLOS agreement. Both nations, as signatories, are to adhere to the convention’s principle granting exclusive rights to resources within a 200-nautical-mile boundary (or EEZ), encompassing islands like Nansha/Spratley.

Manila argue the Islands are part of its existing exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Its claim is supported by an international court ruling in 2016 that deemed Chinese claims unlawful. China declined to participate having already agreed to settle South China Sea related disputes bilaterally in a separate legal document agreed by regional body ASEAN – the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Beijing therefore describes the international court ruling as ‘null and void’.

Beijing has continued to press territorial claims in accordance with its infamous nine-dash line, an invisible boundary line which delineates Chinese and non-Chinese territory, citing evidence of historical rights granted through early exploration dating back centuries. The nine-dash line covers virtually all of the South China Sea and therefore overlaps with the competing territorial claims of many of its neighbours.

The U.S. are directly involved in the dispute for multiple reasons

The Philippines is the United States’ (U.S.) longest standing treaty ally in the Indo-Pacific and the U.S. has reiterated that coast guard altercations do fall under formal commitments to defend the Philippines in the event of attack. This would set off a regional conflict between the world’s two great powers. So are we on the verge of a U.S.-China military confrontation in the South China Sea?

It’s a possibility. In addition to its commitments to defend the Philippines, given the sheer volume of international trade flowing through the region, ensuring shipping routes remain unaffected by territorial disputes has become the main priority of U.S. military patrols in the region. The U.S. therefore has a vested interest in the region.

The Chinese view differs. The Philippines is Taiwan’s neighbour to the south. The narrow straits around the Philippines and Taiwan are covered by undersea internet cables which act as vital channels for U.S. naval forces patrolling the region. U.S. military primacy and its economic dominance go hand-in-hand so it is easy to see why it would be in the U.S. interest to limit Chinese defence capabilities by any means possible.

The U.S. and Chinese perspectives are at direct odds with one another, hence the risk that with any escalation, a far greater regional conflict could flare up between the two superpowers.

Despite recent flare-ups, we are witnessing some slow signs of progress

Leaders of the Philippines and China, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Xi Jinping, recently met on the side-lines of the APEC Summit in San Francisco. With the former attesting, “we tried to come up with mechanisms to lower the tensions in the South China Sea”, and later adding, “I do not think anybody wants to go to war”.

China and ASEAN recently agreed to a deadline of 2026 to finalize negotiations on a Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea. Since 2002, South China Sea claimant states have hoped for a COC to which all parties agree to abide by in regulating the area. Such a mechanism, it is believed, would go a long way toward de-escalating tensions in the region.

Nevertheless, Beijing’s very public stance insisting on the legitimacy of its nine-dash line means it is questionable whether it would make concessions behind closed doors for the sake of reaching a legally-binding COC. Likewise, in acknowledging Chinese claims, stakeholders such as the Philippines would have to undergo a significant change of heart and willingly secede territory which is difficult to foresee given the history. The U.S.’s rather murky role as mediator only complicates an already opaque geopolitical landscape.

In an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world, ‘securonomics’ was the buzzword permeating from the Labour Party’s Conference 2023 in Liverpool. Entrusted with the responsibility to protect Britain, what does ‘securonomics’ really mean?

Through ‘securonomics’ the Labour Party is proposing a foreign policy that begins…at home. The fact that the most notable foreign policy announcement of the recent Labour Conference came during the Shadow Chancellor’s speech, and not the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech is telling in and of itself. In a world of interconnected economies and globalized trade, national security is economic security.

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced during her speech at Labour Conference that “globalization is dead” and a Labour government would instead pursue a policy of ‘securonomics’. Below, we dissect what this really means and if globalization truly is dead.

What does ‘securonomics’ mean?

Labour’s ‘securonomics’ can be understood as the fundamental belief that economic security must precede overtures abroad. This means securing supply chains and building production capacity in areas where the UK is currently over-reliant on other nations, particularly unfriendly ones. “We are living in an age of insecurity”, argued Reeves, in reference to the geopolitical events of Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and war in Europe.

A Britain seeking to play a leading international role must first strengthen its capacity to be self-reliant, “in a world where our adversaries may turn off the taps to energy supply, or remove access to critical technology (…), Britain needs to be more resilient.”

‘Securonomics’ is about Britain ‘standing tall’ and ‘reaching out’

Economic resilience, as outlined above, embodies a figurative reference made repeatedly to Britain ‘standing up’. While Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s speech at Labour Conference 2023 was symbolic of a Britain, having stood tall, that would reach out to allies and renew its partnerships, “a strong Britain is not a lonely Britain but a United Kingdom whose alliances give us strength.”

Lammy referenced the Labour governments of the past and their role in the formation of key international security alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations (UN), suggesting a Labour government would not deviate much from Britain’s longstanding and leading role in the international community.

Together, ‘standing tall’ and ‘reaching out’, not only underpin Labour’s ‘securonomics’ approach to governance but also embody the broader Labour campaign to re-establish public trust by presenting itself as a party of fiscal competence and sensible politics. Protecting the economy demonstrates fiscal competence whilst pledging to strengthen Britain’s existing commitments to its alliances such as NATO is intended to forge a clear distinction between the current Labour Party and its predecessor led by Jeremy Corbyn, who was a vocal critic of NATO.

How would Labour implement ‘securonomics’?

‘Securonomics’ would entail investment in UK industry to increase self-reliance when it comes to critical infrastructure. It would require onshoring jobs in parts of industrial supply chains formerly sent abroad returning to the UK. This in turn demands the upskilling of the UK populace to complete such roles. Labour calls this a bottom-up approach to achieving economic growth and national security simultaneously, whilst advancing the general population’s interests.

‘Why ‘securonomics’?

‘Securonomics’ is symbolic of the wider dissolution of boundaries between domestic and foreign policy, and industrial policy and national security, which we are seeing across Western governments in response to the increasingly unpredictable and dangerous world taking hold all around us.

The United States government’s £350bn Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) leverages private sector investment into domestic manufacturing and critical infrastructure capacity through government subsidies. In doing so, it hoped to accelerate industry shifts toward emerging technologies and securitize its economy.

Australia, Germany, and the EU have all followed suit with similar initiatives. The UK Labour Party’s ‘securonomics’ approach is merely a variation on a common theme emerging in the West – secure at home to stand tall whilst reaching out and engaging abroad with like-minded nations.

Globalisation isn’t dead, only now it has a protectionist streak.

As paranoia grips the West, Chinese and Russian spies are said to threaten us all and bloc politics are emerging again. Let us draw on Arthur Miller’s The Crucible for lessons on how to tread the line between naivety and hysteria in society.

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible is a fictional recasting of the very real tale of the Salem witch trials in the United States between 1692 and 1693. During this time, hundreds were accused of witchcraft leading to hangings and executions.

The basic premise of the story is a group of girls are caught attempting to conjure up a spell. They deny the claims and lie to protect themselves. Their lies take on a life of their own and culminate in the hysteria surrounding the spread of witchcraft in Salem.

One of the more opportunistic girls seizes the subsequent hysteria to accuse the wife of a man she is in love of with and rejected by, witchcraft in order to rid of her. Sensing the shifting public opinion and a dawning realization his wife may be executed, the husband falsely ‘confesses’ to the crime of witchcraft to save his wife but to no avail. Both are hanged, whilst the girls originally accused flee.

The story is a lesson in the danger of hysteria and how information can take on a life of its own once in the public domain. Criminality is weaponized and rather than ridding society of its ills, is manipulated by different actors with differing intentions seeking to further their own agenda. This blurs the lines between fact and fiction, and what is just and unjust. Unintended consequences emerge and innocent people are punished.

We can draw parallels between the hysteria present in The Crucible and in society today, as we explore below.

Drawing parallels between The Crucible and society today

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and the trade war between the United States and China have seen hysteria grip Western societies. Anything and everything Russian or Chinese is to be feared. The US say we must ‘de-couple’. The UK and EU say we must ‘de-risk’. What either of these things mean has been left, by design, ambiguous. This means politicians can be flexible in both interpretation and application in response to the latest international developments.

However, a consequence of such ambiguity is a tendency to conflate hysteria and national security. Spies are a useful recent example of this. In the UK, the case of the parliamentary researcher accused of being a Chinese government informant and more recently the 5 Bulgarian nationals appearing in court on charges of spying for Russia has led some to argue that Chinese and Russian spies are now a threat to us all.

The latest manifestation of such hysteria recently unfolded in Europe where Alibaba, the Chinese technological giant, stands accused of espionage in Belgium via its spin-off logistics firm Cainiao.

As I have argued previously, governments spying on one another, like it or not,  is nothing new. The decision to publicize the cases and to prosecute the accused is.

Whilst intelligence and security agencies justify such an approach for its success in disrupting foreign operations to gather sensitive information, an unintended effect is to create hysteria amongst wider society.

Innocent people suffer at the hands of hysteria

Whilst such thinking begins in the upper echelons of society, government, and institutions, it gradually trickles down into the cracks of society sowing seeds of division. We have been here before.

Western citizens are allegedly being apprehended at random in China and Russia on dubious espionage cases in retaliation to the prosecution of Chinese and Russian spies in the likes of the UK, Belgium, and Germany.

In the UK, Russian people are conflated with their government and face calls to be removed from the country by officials as high ranking as the Minister for Security.

Words matter, we should use them carefully. Countries spy. It can’t be the case that some spying is okay and rational because of some sense of moral superiority. While other spying is wrong because it is a result of innate evil.

Security agencies and media institutions tread a careful line when it comes to national security – balancing naivety and hysteria is no small order – but is a task society demands.