Building a New Narrative for the South China Sea

On July 12, 2025, Wang Yi, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposed during the ASEAN-plus foreign ministers’ meetings in Kuala Lumpur that “a new narrative should be built for the South China Sea. We should not always associate the South China Sea with friction, conflict, or confrontation, but with peace, stability, and cooperation. This should become the mainstream narrative in the future.” The narrative of the South China Sea should mirror the situation in the region, yet for a long time, it has not objectively portrayed the reality. Instead, it has served as a tool for geopolitical maneuvering by external powers. Minister Wang’s proposal seeks to rectify the narrative of the South China Sea, transforming it from a distorted “funhouse mirror” into a clear mirror that guides the region towards peace, stability and cooperation.

The Old Narrative of the South China Sea Fails to Reflect the Reality of the Region

i. The old narrative fails to grasp the overall situation 

It is undeniable that the South China Sea is plagued by some of the world’s most complex territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes. According to general history and experience, if not properly managed, these disputes often become destabilizing factors affecting regional peace and stability. Despite these disputes, China and ASEAN countries have not repeated history due to their shared interests in maintaining regional peace and their historical tradition of peaceful coexistence.

Faced with illegal occupation of some islands and reefs in the South China Sea by some disputants, China, while safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, has consistently advocated for a peaceful resolution. Pending the resolution of the dispute, China has adhered to its commitments in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), keeping restraint and working with neighboring countries to maintain peace and security in the region, promoting practical cooperation and enhancing regional stability and prosperity. Through the long-term joint efforts of China and ASEAN countries, the overall situation remains peaceful and stable. Connected by the South China Sea, the two sides cooperate in trade, investment, security, marine environmental protection and cultural exchanges, continuously creating strong momentum for shared prosperity.

It is evident that territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes are only a tiny part of the relations among regional countries. Overemphasizing disputes between China and neighboring countries, while neglecting the overall peace and stability in the region, could lead to a misjudgment regarding both China's relations with ASEAN countries and the regional situation, potentially resulting in dire consequences.

ii. The old narrative overemphasizes frictions for sensationalism

Overall, when it comes to territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes in the South China Sea, it is common for China and ASEAN countries to manage disputes and actively establish regional rules, with maritime frictions being rare occurrences. In 2002, China and ASEAN countries jointly signed the DOC, committing to resolving territorial and jurisdiction disputes through direct negotiations and consultations between the relevant parties, maintaining self-restraint, refraining from actions that could escalate disputes, and enhancing mutual trust and practical maritime cooperation. Over the past two decades, China and ASEAN countries have made extensive efforts to fully implement the DOC. China, together with other parties such as Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, has established mechanisms for bilateral maritime consultations and dialogue, achieving comprehensive dialogue mechanisms with all countries involved in South China Sea disputes. 

Currently, China and ASEAN countries are actively negotiating to develop a “Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC)” based on the comprehensive implementation of the DOC. Accelerating the negotiation process, the parties have completed three readings of the document, showing strong confidence in reaching an agreement on the COC.

Occasional friction between China and the Philippines stems from deliberate provocations by the latter, attempting to illegally seize Chinese islands and reefs in the South China Sea. This violates the DOC and attempts to occupy uninhabited islands in the Spratly Islands. In order to safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maintain the seriousness of the DOC, China has taken necessary measures. All in all, China has shown great self-restraint, with the situation being generally under control. At the diplomatic level, China has promoted temporary arrangements to manage the situation at Second Thomas Shoal. However, these circumstances have not been accurately reflected in the old narrative of the South China Sea, predominantly led by Western media.

Minister Wang Yi once used the metaphor of a “shadow play” to describe the narrative of “friction and conflict” created by the Philippines and the West. He stated, “Behind each action the Philippines takes at sea, the script is written by external forces, the live broadcast is contracted to Western media and the plot is the same, all intentionally aimed at smearing China. No one is interested in watching this endlessly repeated farce.”[1] Overemphasizing friction for sensationalism and distorting basic facts to “skew the perspective” not only hinder the resolution of South China Sea disputes and the management of hotspot controversies, but also incites conflict and impedes regional countries from deepening mutual trust, disrupting the conducive environment for resolving South China Sea disputes.

iii. The old narrative hinders the deepening of regional practical cooperation via the selective framing of the issues

Freedom of navigation and overflight is a common topic in the narrative of the South China Sea. However, unlike the portrayal by the US and the West of the region, it is one of the freest, safest and most open sea areas in the world. Statistics show that nearly 500,000 commercial ships pass through the South China Sea annually, with around 40% of global trade in goods passing through the sea and its surrounding straits. Additionally, over 1,000,000 civilian aircraft operate in the air above the South China Sea, making it one of the busiest maritime and airspace channels globally. In terms of military activities, both regional and external countries conduct over 20,000 ship-days and more than 30,000 military aircraft sorties in the South China Sea each year, along with hundreds of large-scale military exercises and various drills.[2]

While territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes exist in the South China Sea, these disputes are generally manageable and the disputed areas do not involve major sea lanes in the region. However, the old narrative of the South China Sea, in order to link territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes with the issue of freedom of navigation, deliberately interprets the necessary measures taken by the disputing parties to protect territorial sovereignty and maritime rights as navigation problems.

By selectively framing the issues and excessively emphasizing the impact of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes on so-called freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, the objective issues that truly affect maritime safety in the region from non-traditional factors are underplayed in the long run. The region is characterized by numerous islands, reefs and sandbars, with scattered reefs, shoals and shallow banks, frequently threatened by adverse weather conditions such as typhoons, sea fog and tsunamis. The surrounding countries and regions of the South China Sea have uneven development, lack unified planning for maritime security and generally have weak capabilities in communication, navigation, as well as search and rescue. Moreover, the countries in the region face shared challenges and issues such as marine infrastructure development, marine environmental governance, climate change and sustainable development. China and neighboring countries are actively engaged in relevant cooperation efforts,[3] but the excessive emphasis on territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes hampers the efforts of regional countries to promote practical cooperation.

The New Narrative for the South China Sea is Inevitable

The old narrative emphasizing friction and conflict while highlighting the geopolitical competition is neither transparent nor objective. This narrative deviates from the basic understanding of the South China Sea issue by ordinary people in the region. According to surveys, over 80% of Southeast Asian people believe that their country has good relations with China, over 60% are concerned about external interference affecting South China Sea stability, and over 60% are looking forward to advancing diverse cooperation in the marine domain.[4] It is evident that peace, stability and prosperity are the visions and expectations of the ordinary people in the region. Building a new narrative of “peace, stability and cooperation” for the South China Sea is the dominant trend and the desire of the people.

The new narrative aligns with the shared interests of regional countries in maintaining peace and security in the South China Sea, and in creating stability and prosperity together. China and ASEAN countries are interconnected geographically. Also, in recent years, cooperation between China and ASEAN countries in political, economic and cultural fields has been continuously strengthened. In 2021, China and ASEAN officially announced the establishment of a comprehensive strategic partnership, marking a new milestone in their relationship, and injecting fresh momentum into regional peace, stability, prosperity and development. In trade and economy, China and ASEAN have highlighted numerous cooperation in emerging areas like e-commerce and digital technology, and have achieved fruitful results in advancing regional economic integration and facilitating personnel exchanges. Economic prosperity, improved livelihoods and social progress are inseparable from a region of peace and stability. Safeguarding regional peace and stability is a necessary condition for creating prosperity and development, a common interest of China and neighboring countries, as well as the mainstream voice of ASEAN countries. In June 2024, Indonesian President Prabowo at the 21st Shangri-La Dialogue stated that true security is achieved by establishing friendly relations between neighboring countries, “cooperation is the only way to prosperity and harmony.”[5]

The new narrative of the South China Sea is in line with the common cultural tradition and value pursuit of seeking common ground while preserving differences and valuing harmony among regional countries. Since ancient times, China has peacefully coexisted with neighboring countries, creating many tales of friendly exchanges. The historical interactions between China and neighboring countries embody core concepts of peace, harmony and cooperation, along with the aspiration and desire to build a better home together. 

In modern times, China and Southeast Asian countries share similar historical experiences. After achieving national independence, these shared historical experiences and common value pursuits converged into the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the Bandung Spirit. Now, with the South China Sea as a connector, China and neighboring countries coexist peacefully and cooperate for mutual benefit. They move forward together in harmonious symbiosis, bearing the continuation of these traditions and ideals, as well as the practical application of a Maritime Community with a Shared Future.

The new narrative of the South China Sea objectively reflects the joint efforts of regional countries over the past 20 years, and its essence resonates with international law principles and rules, including the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Peace and cooperation are not only shared values and pursuits of China and neighboring countries but are also requirements of general international law and regional regulations. 

For example, Article 123 of UNCLOS emphasizes that coastal countries with closed or semi-closed seas should cooperate in issues such as the management, conservation, exploration and development of marine resources, protection and preservation of the marine environment, marine scientific research, etc. Simultaneously, Article 6 of DOC requires parties to cooperate on marine environmental protection, marine scientific research, maritime safety, search and rescue, combating transnational crimes and other areas. Over the past 20 years, China and neighboring countries have actively cooperated in maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and relief, marine environmental protection and sustainable marine development, achieving numerous substantive outcomes. Promoting practical cooperation at sea is also an important part of the COC negotiations. Advocating a new narrative of “peace, stability and cooperation" in the South China Sea not only fully acknowledges the joint efforts of China and ASEAN countries in the past but also serves as a guarantee and confidence toward the continuous good-faith fulfillment of relevant international legal obligations in the future.

The Path to Building a New Narrative for the South China Sea

Currently, while the overall situation in the South China Sea remains stable, unilateral infringements by regional countries and increased military activities by certain external countries negatively impact the peace and stability of the region. Transforming the narrative from “friction, conflict and even confrontation” to a positive one of “peace, stability, and cooperation” is a crucial issue faced by China and ASEAN countries. Laden with the “negative assets” of the South China Sea Arbitration, any shift is challenging. Hence, it is the essential path to alter the South China Sea narrative by overcoming the adverse effects of the arbitration and exploring flexible, cooperative and enduring dispute resolutions with an open mindset to exclude external interference and deepen mutual trust.

First, the foundation of the narrative shift relies on objectively assessing the impact of the South China Sea Arbitration on the South China Sea situation and eliminating the negative repercussions.

Different countries hold different stances on the South China Sea Arbitration. The Philippines looks up to the judgment as the standard and demands that China adhere to it as if the execution of the ruling will resolve all South China Sea disputes. For geopolitical reasons, countries like the US urge China to comply with the ruling, emphasizing its legal effect among the parties. However, the US has not taken a position on whether specific islands in the South China Sea are “rocks” under Article 121(3) of the Convention yet.[6] Some ASEAN countries believe that the reasoning and conclusions in certain parts of the arbitration case could turn into universally applicable principles of international law to clarify the rights claims of various countries in the South China Sea. China holds that the arbitration tribunal ruled without jurisdiction, overstepped its authority and significantly deviated from states’ practices and the original intent of UNCLOS on key legal interpretation and application issues, rendering the ruling illegal and invalid.

The ruling of the arbitration did not positively foster the resolution of disputes in the South China Sea. The Philippines increasingly adopts more provocative methods to illegally seize unpopulated islands and reefs in the Spratly Islands; unilateral activities by neighboring countries have increased; external countries have strengthened their military presence in the region. Both practical cooperation and the establishment of regional rules are in adversity. Some attribute these negative impacts to China’s policies of not accepting, not participating, not recognizing and not executing the ruling, which is not the case.

The essence of the South China Sea Arbitration is the Philippines’ disguising the sovereignty disputes over some islands and reefs in the Spratly Islands and the resulting maritime rights dispute into disputes over the legal status of islands and reefs and maritime rights unrelated to territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. 

It is well known that “the land dominates the sea” is a fundamental principle of maritime law, and the preamble of UNCLOS clearly requires “establish [...] with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and ocean” Many of the issues raised by the Philippines essentially involve territorial sovereignty issues or questions that can only be answered after resolving territorial sovereignty. 

For example, the Philippines demands that the tribunal rule that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal belong to its exclusive economic zone, which essentially involves China’s sovereignty claim over the Spratly Islands as a single unit, including Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal. If the tribunal rules on the attribution of these reefs individually, it would undermine China’s sovereignty over the Spratly Islands as a whole. Another example is the Philippines’ request for the so-called “traditional fishing rights” near Scarborough Shoal, which cannot be judged without determining the sovereignty attribution of the Scarborough Shoal and ascertaining the nature of the waters near it, let alone determining the rights of various countries in that water area. By adopting the assumption that the Scarborough Shoal belongs to China, the tribunal has essentially indicated that it cannot answer the maritime law questions raised by the Philippines without determining the attribution of sovereignty.

It is a delusion to divorce sovereignty from maritime rights in the interest of the Philippines. Its demands reveal the true purpose of initiating the arbitration, which is to claim sovereignty over parts of the Spratly Islands. The Philippines’ frequent provocations in the waters near the Scarborough Shoal actually reflect the fundamental reason why the ruling cannot resolve South China Sea disputes. Given that territorial sovereignty is the top concern of all parties involved in the disputes, there are no shortcuts to resolving the South China Sea disputes. Evading territorial sovereignty issues while trying to determine the scope of maritime rights in the South China Sea can only lead to confusion.

Objectively assessing the impact and role of the ruling is not about requiring ASEAN countries to fully accept China’s rights assertions and viewpoints. Instead, only when all parties clearly recognize the fact that the South China Sea Arbitration cannot fundamentally resolve South China Sea disputes could the psychological crux of the narrative shift in the South China Sea be addressed.

Second, the motivation of the narrative shift comes from continuously sending positive signals to unite differences externally. In issues related to regional rule-construction, dispute resolution methods and practical maritime cooperation, realistically facing issues and challenges with a pragmatic attitude, innovating solutions with a positive stance, enhancing dialogue and consistently releasing positive signals of peace and cooperation are necessary to propel the South China Sea narrative in a positive direction.

In the negotiations concerning COC, all parties should aim to establish regional rules for dispute control and prevention, viewing the negotiation process with an open-minded approach. 

The obstacles in COC negotiations primarily stem from the lack of consensus on crucial issues such as the applicable maritime areas and the effectiveness of the COC. In terms of regional rule-construction, the greatest consensus lies in maintaining peace and stability and controlling disputes in the South China Sea. Therefore, all parties should focus on this major consensus, engage in negotiations centered around dispute control objectives, concentrate on the content of the code and ensure it does not impact the rights claims and positions of the parties concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights. This will release more positive signals for joint efforts in safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea, transforming the old narrative that highlights divergences. The external community should also assess the negotiation process with a more open and tolerant mindset and maintain a rational and positive outlook. COC cannot resolve all issues in the South China Sea, and the construction of rules in the region is a dynamic process that requires patience and tolerance.

Regarding dispute solution, all parties should remain open and patient, exploring inclusive and cooperative dispute resolution methods. Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations lists a series of peaceful means, including political ones like negotiation, consultation, enquiry, mediation, and judicial and quasi-judicial ones like arbitration and international judicial settlement. UNCLOS also respects the parties’ right to choose their preferred means for peacefully resolving disputes. From the traditions and practices of South China Sea countries, international judicial and arbitration means may not necessarily be the best options. Despite taking longer, negotiation is preferred for the international community in addressing maritime issues. Therefore, all parties should be patient in resolving disputes properly. Meanwhile, all parties should keep an open mind towards the choice of dispute resolution means and actively explore the ones that are in line with the tradition of regional countries, as well as being flexible, inclusive and cooperative. On May 30, 2025, the signing ceremony for the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation was held in Hong Kong, China. The International Organization for Mediation is an inter-governmental legal organization jointly initiated by China and 18 other countries, specializing in resolving international disputes through mediation. Unlike adversarial judicial and quasi-judicial means, mediation, as a friendly, flexible, economical and expedient solution, is increasingly being adopted by the international community.

In promoting practical maritime cooperation, all parties should expand the scope of cooperation and foster win-win cooperation. There is still space for further cooperation between China and ASEAN countries in areas such as maritime search and rescue, marine environmental protection, disaster prevention and relief, marine infrastructure development, climate change and sustainable development. When advancing practical cooperation, all parties should fully implement the premise of “not impeding or obstructing the rights claims and positions of the parties concerning territorial sovereignty and maritime rights”, alleviating the impact of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights disputes on practical cooperation. Based on the foundation, countries should adopt a more open attitude towards sensitive cooperation issues like oil and gas resource development. 

On November 9, 2024, China and Indonesia jointly issued the Joint Statement Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Indonesia on Advancing the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and the China-Indonesia Community with a Shared Future, announcing crucial agreements on conducting joint development cooperation in overlapping maritime areas claimed by both countries and unanimously agreeing to establish an Inter-Governmental Joint Steering Committee to explore and promote relevant cooperation in accordance with respective prevailing laws and regulations.

Third, the guarantee to break free from the narrative of geopolitical competition in the South China Sea is to maintain confidence in collectively managing disputes and properly resolving conflicts without external interference. 

For years, China and ASEAN countries have managed South China Sea disputes through bilateral and multilateral channels, jointly safeguarding peace and stability in the region. Throughout this process, China and ASEAN countries have continuously proposed creative ideas to build consensus. As early as the 1980s, China proposed “shelving disputes and seeking joint development” in the South China Sea disputes. In 2014, China and ASEAN countries again innovatively proposed the “dual-track approach” to resolving South China Sea disputes. These practices prove that China and ASEAN countries have the capability and wisdom to address their disputes properly. China and ASEAN countries should maintain their confidence in this regard.

Confidence is the foundation for deepening mutual trust and excluding external interference. Only by believing in one’s own capabilities can trust be accumulated; only by deepening trust can external interference be effectively eliminated; only by excluding external interference can China and ASEAN countries independently set the agenda for the South China Sea, channeling the narrative towards a healthy and positive direction.

The South China Sea tightly connects China and ASEAN countries. China and ASEAN countries should jointly uphold peace and stability in the South China Sea with a sense of ownership, properly resolving disputes. As long as China and ASEAN countries converge on common goals and eliminate interference, they will be able to break away from the narrative of geopolitical competition in the South China Sea dominated by the US and the West, construct a new narrative of peace, stability and cooperation, and truly make the South China Sea a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation.

Reference

[1] 十四届全国人大三次会议记者会，中共中央政治局委员、外交部长王毅就“中国外交政策和对外关系”相关问题回答中外记者提问，2025年3月7日，https://lianghui.huanqiu.com/article/4LlLTBezyIH 

[2] 南海战略态势感知计划：《南海航行及飞越状况报告》，2024年9月，第II页。

[3] 参见于敏娜：《维护南海海上安全，中国在行动》，2025年7月10日。

[4] 中央广播电视总台研究院、中央广播电视总台华语环球节目中心：《东南亚涉南海认知报告》，2025年3月，https://vscs.cri.cn/20250329/79fd9f94-53a6-8a66-c35c-3d867cdc554f.html. 

[5]《国际观察｜对话解决南海问题是东盟国家主流声音》，新华网，2024 年 6 月 8 日。

[6] United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Limits in the Seas (No. 150): People’s Republic of China: Maritime Claims in the South China Sea, Jan. 2022, p.27.