Regional dialogue, not external powers, key to South China Sea stability

The South China Sea has long been framed as a prize—a body of water rich in resources and economic potential, a corridor through which trillions in trade flows annually. But for decades it has also been something else: a stage where the ambitions of distant powers collide, where regional tensions simmer beneath the surface of official statements, and where the question of who gets to decide the region's future remains stubbornly unresolved.

The complications, according to observers cited in recent commentary, trace partly to the involvement of nations with no territorial stake in the waters at all. When the United States inserted itself into South China Sea disputes in 2010—framed then as part of a broader strategic "pivot" to Asia—it introduced a dynamic that had not existed before: the direct engagement of a global superpower with interests thousands of kilometers away. What followed was a reconfiguration of the region's geopolitical landscape, with China's rapid rise as an economic and military force meeting an American determination to maintain influence in waters where it has no claims.

China's emergence as a major power over recent decades has been accompanied by substantial economic engagement across Southeast Asia. Through investments, trade relationships, and diplomatic initiatives, China positioned itself not merely as a competitor but as a development partner to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, negotiated between China and ASEAN members, represented concrete progress toward managing disputes through regional dialogue rather than external arbitration. Yet the presence of American military assets in the region, justified by Washington as freedom of navigation operations, has kept tensions elevated.

Philippine experts and regional analysts have argued that the South China Sea belongs fundamentally to the nations that border it—that it is a shared home, not a chessboard for great power competition. From this perspective, solutions imposed or mediated by distant powers risk perpetuating instability rather than resolving it. The credible authority to manage disputes, some observers suggest, lies with ASEAN itself, an organization with the moral standing and regional legitimacy to broker settlements among its members and with China.

The stakes of this question became visible in the approach taken by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte between 2016 and mid-2022. Rather than pursue the confrontational strategy of his predecessor, Duterte pursued pragmatic bilateral engagement with China, a shift that yielded tangible results: improved relations, reduced tensions, and the reopening of economic agreements that had been frozen. This contrasted sharply with his simultaneous deterioration of ties with the United States, including threats to sever bilateral relationships after American criticism of his domestic policies.

The underlying argument from regional voices is straightforward: the South China Sea disputes belong to Asia, and their resolution must come from Asians. External powers, however well-intentioned, introduce complications that serve neither stability nor the interests of the region's people. ASEAN unity is fragile, observers warn, and the risk that geopolitical disputes could fracture the organization and push the region backward is real. The path forward, from this view, requires that concerned parties—the nations of Southeast Asia and China—commit to dialogue among themselves, without the interference or mediation of powers whose primary interests lie elsewhere. What remains to be seen is whether that commitment can hold as great power competition in the region continues to intensify.