The United States and the Philippines carried out a “maritime cooperative activity” in South China Sea waters that are within Manila’s jurisdiction, officials said Thursday.
The two allies’ joint activity was held even as China and the Philippines say they are moving to“deescalate” tensions in the contested sea area after they spiked mid-June when a Filipino sailorlost a thumb allegedly in an encounter with Chinese coast guard personnel.
Meanwhile, a Vietnamese coast guard ship is on its way to the Philippines for the first joint coast guard drills between the neighbors who both have territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea, Hanoi announced.
Philippine military chief Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. said the partnership between Washington and Manila, bound by a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, “continues to be a pillar of regional stability.”
“These joint exercises with our ally are crucial in enhancing our naval capabilities and ensuring that we can effectively collaborate to safeguard our maritime interests,” he said, referring to the “cooperative activity.”
It also underscored the “strong defense ties between the Philippines and the United States and their shared commitment to upholding freedom of navigation and a rules-based order” in the South China Sea, Brawner said.
A Philippine Navy offshore combat patrol ship and a U.S. Navy littoral combat ship participated in the drill that ended at dusk on Wednesday in the West Philippine Sea, which is what Manila calls areas in the South China Sea that are in its exclusive economic zone.
(From left) U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are joined by their Philippine counterparts Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo and Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro in 2+2 talks in Manila, July 30, 2024. (Jason Gutierrez/BenarNews)
Philippine military public affairs office chief Col. Xerxes Trinidad did not disclose the exact location of the joint maritime activity with the U.S. He said that based on the navy’s report, “no Chinese vessel was detected in the exercise area, both by visual and radar monitoring.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday in Manila announced a $500 million infusion to help the Philippines defend its shores amid increasing territorial threats from China.
Tensions and confrontations between Manila and Beijing have been on the rise over a shoal, known as Ren’ai Jiao in China and Ayungin Shoal in the Philippines.
Manila accuses Beijing of blocking access to Filipino troops stationed at the shoal which serves a military outpost for the Philippines, which has troops stationed there. China maintains it has sovereignty over the shoal.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday welcomed a “provisional agreement” reached between Beijing and Manila regarding the latter’s resupply missions to the shoal.
He still noted that Washington and Manila continued to worry about Beijing’s actions.
“Both of us share concerns – and many other countries in the region share concerns as well – about some of the actions that the People’s Republic of China has taken,” he said, calling them “escalatory actions” in the South China Sea as well as in the East China Sea.
Philippine-Vietnam coast guard drills
U.S. Defense Secretary Austin, for his part, said that the new funding sends a “clear message of support” and indicated that the allies were “operating more closely and capably than ever.”
China, in reaction, called on Manila not to be swayed by the U.S. which is not a party to the overlapping claims in the region.
On Wednesday,Lin Jian, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said Washington was interfering on maritime issues between Manila and Beijing. He warned the Philippines against being turned into “a chess piece” in a geopolitical game by the U.S.
“The Philippines needs to see that ganging up with countries outside the region to engage in confrontation in the South China Sea will only destabilize the region and create more tensions,” Lin said.
Vietnam, another Southeast Asian nation that contests China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea, said that a 2,400-ton vessel left central Vietnam on Wednesday and is expected to arrive in Manila on Aug. 5 for joint drills with the Philippine Coast Guard.
The two sides will offer training in “responding to different scenarios in international waters,” the Vietnam People’s Army newspaper reported. It did not provide details.
The Vietnamese ship is expected to remain in Philippine waters until Aug. 9 with the Vietnamese crew taking part in joint training exercises including search and rescue, fire and explosion prevention and maritime safety with the Philippine Coast Guard.
During a state visit by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to Vietnam in January, the two sides signed understandings on maritime cooperation between coast guards, among other things.
Jeoffrey Maitem in Davao City, Philippines, contributed to this report.
BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jason Gutierrez for BenarNews.
A claim emerged in Chinese-language media that American and Chinese ships recently engaged in intense electronic warfare for more than 12 hours in the South China Sea, causing internet outages and GPS disruption in the north of the Philippines.
However, the claim lacks evidence. There are no official or credible reports to back it up. Experts told AFCL that the details cited by Chinese-language media do not match real electronic warfare scenarios.
The claim was shared in a report published by Hong Kong-based Oriental Daily News on July 8, 2024.
“Recently, the media in Taiwan and the Philippines have been reporting a news story that the U.S. and China have been engaged in a 12-hour electronic confrontation in the South China Sea, and that the US forces have lost the battle,” the claim reads in part.
“During this period, GPS in the northern part of the Philippines was completely cut off, and all communications, including telephone and television signals, were seriously affected,” it reads further.
Chinese netizens have claimed that U.S. and Chinese air forces recently engaged in electronic warfare over the South China Sea, causing power outages in the north of the Philippines. (Screenshots/YouTube and Tencent)
Similar claims have been shared on other Chinese-language media reports here, here and here.
But the claim lacks evidence.
Origin of the claim
Many Chinese media outlets, which circulated the claim, cited either “online users” or” Taiwanese media outlets”.
However, keyword searches show that some Taiwanese media outlets cited “media reports from the Philippines” to back the claim.
Keyword searches found no official or credible reports to back the claim.
The earliest media report that contains this claim is from China’s Netease, which was published on June 30.
The Neteast report cited “media reports from the Philippines” and “foreign media outlets” as evidence for the claim, without identifying the outlets.
Power outages
Gao Zhirong, an assistant researcher at the Taipei-based Institute for National Defense and Security Studies, said that the details cited by Chinese-language media do not match real electronic warfare scenarios. Such operations typically target enemy telecommunications equipment and radar, not civilian internet.
“There’s no way to mess with the internet, other than to send some people to cut the undersea cables,” he said.
Gao added that the reported location of the clash is too far from northern Philippines for the jamming effects to have likely caused any disruption there.
“You’d need a whole lot of power for that, which was unlikely to be reached,” he says.
Unlikely scenario
Chinese-language media reports claimed that after a Chinese vessel recovered a sonar buoy dropped by a U.S. P8A anti-submarine aircraft in the South China Sea, both sides dispatched several electronic warfare aircraft to the area.
They further claimed that the U.S. military sent Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft and Boeing RC-135 strategic reconnaissance planes, while China dispatched Shaanxi Y-9 warplanes and Type 815 surveillance ships.
But Richard Fisher, a senior researcher at the International Assessment and Strategy Center told AFCL that it was unlikely the U.S. military would engage in a large-scale electronic war to protect sonar buoys.
The primary purpose of the EA-18G Growler is to attack and disrupt electronic combat systems, such as radar and missile guidance, said Fisher, adding that jamming GPS signals is only a secondary function of the aircraft.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.
Former high-ranking North Korean diplomat Thae Yong Ho, who defected to South Korea in 2016 and became a lawmaker in 2020, has blazed another trail.
South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol appointed Thae, 62, as secretary general of the country’s Peaceful Unification Advisory Council on July 18, making him the first defector to hold a vice-ministerial position in the South Korean government.
Thae was born in Pyongyang in 1962, graduated from Pyongyang Foreign Language Institute and Pyongyang University of International Relations, and was a professional diplomat who worked at the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While working as an attaché at the North Korean Embassy in the UK in 2016, he defected to South Korea with his family.
Four years later, Thae won a seat in the National Assembly, representing Seoul’s wealthy Gangnam district. He became the first North Korean escapee who had previously served in the North Korean government to join the legislative body.
Tae Yongho, a former minister of the North Korean Embassy in London who fled to South Korea in 2016, speaks to the media in Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 19, 2019. (Lee Jin-man/AP)
“North Korean residents are also proud citizens of the Republic of Korea,” he said on social media, using the official name of South Korea. “North Korean escapees can hold any position for the country and people without any discrimination or prejudice.”
He said the appointment was meaningful in that it shows the North Korean people that those who have escaped can achieve success in the South.
Since the division of the two Koreas more than 34,000 people have fled the North to resettle in the South, according to statistics from the South Korean Ministry of Unification.
The news of Thae’s appointment was inspiring to Kim Sukyong, who himself escaped North Korea in 1998 and settled in the United States.
“When I heard this, it was clear that South Korea is a democratic country where if you have the desire and ability, you can become anything,” said Kim, who serves as vice chairman of the Unification Education Division of the Washington Chapter of the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council.
She said that North Koreans who learn of Thae’s success will expect more freedom in their own lives.
“People who were begging on the streets in North Korea can come to South Korea and get famous,” she said. “Those who arrive (in South Korea) by boat can study hard there and succeed. It shows that … South Korea offers more opportunities and freedom than North Korea. People in North Korea will come to realize this.”
Former Rome-based North Korean diplomat Kim Dong Su, center, speaks during a press conference with his family members in Seoul, Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1997. Kim arrived with his wife Shim Myong Suk, right, and son Kim Jin Myong, left, in Seoul from Rome on Feb. 6. (Ahn Young-joon/AP)
A number of North Korean escapees have entered high-ranking public positions in South Korea in recent years.
In May, Ko Yonghwan, a former first secretary at the North Korean embassy in Congo and the first North Korean defector to become a South Korean diplomat, was appointed as the president of the National Institute for Unification Education (NIU) under the Ministry of Unification.
Ko, who defected from North Korea in 1991, was appointed as a special aide to the Unification Minister in September last year.
Kim Dong Su, who defected in the late 1990s and formerly served as the third secretary at North Korea’s mission to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), was appointed as a director of the Korea Hana Foundation under the Ministry of Unification in 2022. In 2023, he was further appointed as a central committee member of the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council.
Newly elected lawmaker Park Choong-kwon, who defected to South Korea from North Korea in 2009, poses during an interview with AFP at the Members’ Office Building, near the National Assembly Building in Seoul, May 28, 2024. (Anthony Wallace/AFP)
In addition to the appointed high-ranking officials, North Korean escapee Park Choong-kwon is currently elected member of the South Korean National Assembly, following in the footsteps of Thae, Ji Seong-ho, who also won a seat in 2020, and Cho Myung-chul, who won a seat in the 2012 legislative election.
After his election in April, Park Choong-kwon told RFA that if North Koreans were to learn about the young North Korean elite who became a South Korean National Assembly member after defecting, it would likely be a significant shock to them.
Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Kim Jisu for RFA Korean.
The number of Chinese ships in Philippines-claimed areas in the South China Sea has dropped, but the military on Tuesday said it was too early to tell whether this was because of an agreement to de-escalate tensions in the waterway.
The military reported 104 Chinese ships in Manila’s waters from July 9 to 15 compared with 153 before both countries convened the Bilateral Consultative Mechanism, or BCM, on July 2, said Rear Adm. Roy Vincent Trinidad, navy spokesman for the West Philippine Sea.
Manila refers to territories in the South China Sea within its exclusive economic zone as the West Philippine Sea.
“There was a decrease. Whether this is because of the BCM, it still remains to be seen,” Trinidad told reporters.
The latest BCM has established a South China Sea “hotline” to quickly address issues in the region as they arise – authorities have yet to provide details on this mechanism. However, similar agreements in the past were not effective in resolving disputes.
Manila and Beijing agreed to de-escalate tensions in the South China Sea following a tense standoff between Filipino troops and China Coast Guard personnel at Second Thomas (Ayungin) Shoal on June 17, during which a Philippine sailor lost a finger.
Filipino military officials claimed China Coast Guard personnel, armed with pikes and machetes, punctured Philippine boats and seized firearms during the incident.
The Philippine military has not launched another mission to Ayungin Shoal since then and Trinidad said it was too early to tell if the alleged Chinese harassment in the South Sea would be stopped because of the BCM.
“We will know about this when we conduct the next RoRe [rotation and reprovisioning]. But for now, our basis for our assessment is the number of [Chinese] ships that we have monitored,” Trinidad said.
“We will continue ensuring the integrity of the national territories, especially the West Philippine Sea, against the actions by the agents of aggression of the Chinese communist party,” he said.
Beijing has defended its actions, insisting on its sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea.
Military chiefs meet
Also on Tuesday, Philippine military chief Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. met with Gen. Charles Brown Jr., chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, to discuss ways to enhance cooperation between the two allies and boost their joint annual war games. Specific details of the closed-door talks were not made available.
“Our alliance with the United States remains a cornerstone of our national security,” Brawner said, adding that both countries were working to “fortify our defense capabilities and ensure stability of the region.”
The United States and the Philippines are bound by a 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, which calls on each to come to the other’s aid in times of war or third-party aggression.
BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jason Gutierrez for BenarNews.
Six in 10 South Koreans believe that people who have escaped North Korea should not be called “talbuk-min” or “talju-min” in Korean – terms which are often translated into English as “defector” – a survey by a Seoul-based government think tank revealed.
The Korea Institute for National Unification, or KINU, asked 505 North Korean escapees who settled in South Korea and 500 other South Korean citizens their opinions of both monikers. Of these, 59% of respondents said that it was necessary to change the official terminology for North Korean escapees, 29% said no change was necessary, and 12% said they were not sure.
KINU revealed the results during its Unification Policy Forum, an event it hosted two days before the very first Defectors’ Day, a new holiday declared by the government that will be celebrated every July 14.
Of those who said it was necessary to change the terms, 61% said it was because they have a negative connotation, 19% said it was because the terms cast South Korea-based families of escapees negatively, and 15% said the terms do not take into account the opinions of escapees.
Since the end of hostilities in the Korean War in 1953, more than 34,000 North Koreans have escaped the North to resettle in the South, according to statistics from the South Korean Ministry of Unification. Many more escapees live in China, and must hide from authorities because of the threat of forced repatriation.
Author Kongdan Oh speaks during a discussion to mark the first North Korean Defector’s Day in Alexandria, Virginia, July 14, 2024. (Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)
What’s in a word?
The debate on how to describe people who have escaped from North Korea extends beyond the Korean language.
Rights organizations often use the term “refugee” because they believe that it more accurately describes the reasons they flee, and it promotes the idea that China has a responsibility to protect North Korean escapees in its territory because they could face persecution if they are made to return.
Beijing, however, says they are economic migrants who have illegally entered the country, not refugees, and are therefore not entitled to protection under international law.
The South Korean government often translates the official terms as “defector” in English, and many – if not most – international media outlets use this term.
Radio Free Asia refers only to those who were members of the government or the military at the time of their escape as defectors, opting for the more neutral term “escapee” in all other cases.
Alternatives
At a policy symposium on July 10, South Korea’s Presidential Committee of National Cohesion proposed using new terminology such as “buk-baegyeong-jumin,” meaning “residents with a northern background;” or “talbuk-gukmin,” which could be translated as “defector citizens.”
According to KINU’s survey, of the respondents who said that the official terms need to change, 28% said they preferred the term “hana-min” which could be loosely translated as “people from the one, singular Korea.”
Yusook Kim, left, president of the Washington chapter at Alliance for Korea United, and Julie Turner, right, U.S. special envoy for North Korean Human Rights issues, pose for a photo with recipients of scholarships at North Korean Defector’s Day in Alexandria, Virginia, July, 14 2024. (Gemunu Amarasinghe/RFA)
Meanwhile 26% said they preferred “tongil-min,” meaning “unified people;” 24% liked “bukhyang-min,” or “people with a hometown in the north;” 9% liked “buk-iju-min” or “northern immigrants;” and 4% liked “buk-baegyeong-jumin,” the term proposed by the presidential committee, which means they have a northern background.
About 9% said they preferred something other than those terms.
Because there is no consensus, keeping the existing terms makes the most sense, Lee Kyu-chang, the director of KINU’s Human Rights Research Division said at the Unification Policy Forum on Friday.
He said though that if the official terminology must be changed, he preferred the “talbuk-gukmin” or “defector citizens” because it acknowledges that these people are citizens of South Korea, with the same rights as every other citizen.
Participants in the first North Korean Defector’s Day ceremony take a group picture on July 13, 2024 in front of SS Lane Victory at Los Angeles Harbor. In December 1950, during the Korean War, the ship evacuated over 3,800 U.S. troops and 1,100 vehicles from Hungnam. (Courtesy of Sangjin Kim/The Korea Daily)
South Korea claims to be the sole legitimate government on the Korean peninsula, and its official policy is that all North Koreans are its citizens.
North Korea held the same view officially until late last year, when it declared that North and South Koreans are not the same people living in the same country, but instead are citizens of two hostile nations.
“This is why we need to continue to send the message that we are the same country and the same race of people,” said Lee.
Of the alternative terms, “buk-baegyeong-jumin,” the term that means “residents with a northern background,” is problematic because it suggests that the escapees are in the same lot as immigrants, Hyun In-ae, the director of the Seoul-based Korean Peninsula Future Women’s Research Institute, told RFA Korean.
“[North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un said that South and North Koreans are a different race of people,” she said. “If we regard North Korean escapees as ‘immigrants,’ we essentially are agreeing with the North Korean regime’s opinion.”
Translated by Claire S. Lee and Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Lee Jeong Eun for RFA Korean.
Britain’s new ruling party has pledged a thorough audit of U.K.-China relations to establish a clearer long-term China policy, including its dealings with Beijing over the South China Sea and Taiwan, but analysts say little change is likely in the near future.
Keir Starmer’s Labour party won a landslide victory in last week’s general election, ending 14 years of Conservative government.
U.K. policy has been that it “takes no sides in the sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, but we oppose any activity that undermines or threatens U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) authority – including attempts to legitimise incompatible maritime claims,” in the words of Anne-Marie Trevelyan, minister of state for Indo-Pacific under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Trevelyan reiterated that London’s commitment to the UNCLOS was “unwavering” as it played a leading role in setting the legal framework for the U.K.’s maritime activities.
“It’s a standard position on upholding international law, freedom of navigation and the rules-based order,” said Ian Storey, fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, “This is not going to change.”
However, with China’s increased assertiveness and growing military might, upholding those principles in distant waters will be a challenge. Furthermore, there are Britain’s own interests in economics, security and geopolitics to be considered.
In 2021, the British government announced an overhaul in its foreign policy – Global Britain in a Competitive Age – which emphasized a “tilt to the Indo-Pacific” that, following in the footsteps of the U.S., promised a bolder strategic presence in the region where China is looming large. In 2022, Britain released a new National Strategy for Maritime Security, with one of the main focuses being the South China Sea.
The United Kingdom’s carrier strike group led by HMS Queen Elizabeth, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces joined with U.S. Navy carrier strike groups led by flagships USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson to conduct multiple carrier strike group operations in the Philippine Sea, Oct. 3, 2021. (U.S. Navy)
Yet there has not been any major British deployment in the region since 2021, and the Royal Navy did not send a warship to take part in the ongoing U.S.-led RIMPAC – the world’s largest international maritime exercise.
It remains unclear how Britain will pursue its maritime ambitions in the Asia-Pacific, especially when overall policy towards China has been deemed inconsistent.
‘Clear steer’ in dealing with China
Labour’s promise to conduct both a defense review and an audit of China policy “leaves many questions unanswered,” said Gray Sergeant, research fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, a British think tank.
“Initially, Labour was skeptical about the ’tilt to the Indo-Pacific’, however, they have supported measures which have stepped up Britain’s defense role in the region,” Sergeant told RFA.
“It is very unlikely such advances will be reversed, the question is whether a Labour government will be inclined to build on these steps if, as it seems, attention is focused on enhancing the U.K.’s role in European security,” the analyst said.
Another China expert, veteran diplomat Charles Parton, said that in the past Labour “has not said things which indicate that its China policy will be different from that of the Conservatives.”
“But the latter’s strategy was never articulated, for which they came in for justified criticism,” said Parton, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. “The pressure now is on Labour to give a clear steer and to ensure consistent implementation across the various government departments whose interests involve dealing with China.”
The Conservative government recognized China as a “systemic challenge”’ that it sought to counter with a three-stranded strategy of “‘protect, align, engage.” Labour’s new foreign secretary, David Lammy, proposed a similar “three Cs” (compete, challenge, cooperate) in dealing with China.
“That signals continuity,” said Gray Sergeant. “The question is which of these three strands will take precedence?”
The analyst noted that Lammy put particular emphasis on cooperation and engagement, and seemed keen on more ministers visiting China, which was Britain’s fifth-largest trading partner in 2023, according to the U.K. Department for Business and Trade.
Some activists, like Luke de Pulford from the U.K. Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said that the new British government was likely to champion trade over thorny issues that would cause discord.
“Labour needs to deliver on the economy and is scared that upsetting Beijing would jeopardize that goal,” de Pulford wrote in a recent opinion piece.
“Ministerial ambition, parliamentary trench warfare, media outrage or unavoidable circumstantial change can all shift policy, but outside of a serious escalation in the South China Sea, I don’t see it happening,” the human rights activist wrote.
But another activist said that Labour’s manifesto made clear “their intention to bring a long-term and strategic approach to managing relations with China.”
“This could lead to a more robust stance on human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, and increased support for Taiwan’s autonomy,” said Simon Cheng, a Hong Kong democracy activist in London.
“However, we must watch closely how these words translate into actions,” Cheng warned.
What does China say?
China has been closely following developments in U.K. politics, with Premier Li Qiang sending a congratulatory message to Starmer almost immediately after he became Britain’s prime minister on July 5.
Li said that China and Britain were both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and cooperation between them “not only serves the interests of the two countries, but also is conducive to the unity of the international community in addressing global challenges.”
Keir Starmer, then U.K. Shadow Brexit Secretary, in a meeting with former Taiwanese vice president Chen Chien-jen in Taipei on Oct. 1, 2018. (Taiwan Presidential Office)
Starmer, as a member of parliament and shadow Brexit secretary, visited Taiwan in 2016 and 2018 to lobby against the death penalty. Observers say it’s very rare that any top British leader has had an experience of Taiwan, which Beijing considers a Chinese province that must be reunited with the mainland.
While the issue of Taiwan has not emerged in bilateral interactions, British politicians in the past have angered China over their statements about Hong Kong and the South China Sea.
A Foreign Office spokesperson’s statement criticizing the “unsafe and escalatory tactics deployed by Chinese vessels” against the Philippines in the South China Sea earned a rebuke from Chinese diplomats in London, who said they “firmly oppose and strongly condemn the groundless accusation made by the U.K., and have lodged stern representations with the U.K. side on this.”
China maintains that almost all of the disputed South China Sea and its islands belong to it. China refused to accept a 2016 arbitral ruling that rejected all its claims in the South China Sea but it recognized that Britain’s stance of not taking sides in the South China Sea issue had changed.
Before 2016, the U.K. did not have a clear-cut South China Sea policy, wrote Chinese analyst Liu Jin in the China International Studies magazine.
Liu argued that Britain’s change in policy, as well as its stance in the South China Sea, were largely influenced by the United States.
“However, due to the security situation in its home waters, inadequacy of main surface combatants, and pressure of the defense budget, the U.K. will find it hard to expand the scale of Asia-Pacific navigation,” he said, adding that London also lacks the willingness to step up provocation against China.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
The complex web of territorial claims in the South China Sea has long been a source of tension between China and several of its Southeast Asian neighbors.
The area is strategically significant due to its rich natural resources, vital shipping lanes, and geopolitical implications. Efforts to resolve the disputes through international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, have had limited success, and the region remains a flashpoint.
Recently, CGTN, the English-language news channel of China’s state-run China Central Television, or CCTV, broadcast a documentary addressing several facets of this complex issue, including the dispute between China and the Philippines.
Screenshot of CGTN documentary “Sovereignty at Stake: A documentary on the South China Sea”.
This program, titled “Sovereignty at Stake: A documentary on the South China Sea”, aims to present China’s historical claim to the region, but it has drawn criticism for potentially misrepresenting key aspects of the dispute.
Below is what AFCL found.
1. Was the South China Sea primarily navigated by China?
The documentary cited Wu Shicun, president of China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies, as saying that excavated material from the sea are clear evidence that in antiquity “for a long time, it was primarily Chinese people who worked in, passed through and used the waters.”
But this is misleading.
“Common sense would tell you that the Chinese weren’t the only ones living off the ocean,” says Li Woteng, a well-known ethnic Chinese expert on the South China Sea dispute who has written several books on the subject.
Li believes that people from what is now modern China were not the only ones who navigated through and fished in the South China Sea, nor even the main ones.
As evidence, he cited a passage from a work by the 18th century Vietnamese scholar Lê Quý Đôn recording Vietnamese fishermen at work near the Paracel Islands – a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea.
Li noted that the passage also recorded a meeting between Vietnamese and Chinese fishermen working together peaceably at the site.
He added the text demonstrates that Chinese fishermen were not the only ones working in the waterway and it was used by mariners from China and many other Asian countries in antiquity.
International waterway
While the passage alone is not enough evidence to infer who entered the South China Sea first, Li believes that it was not China.
It is possible to claim that Chinese fishermen operating along the coastline of China’s southernmost Hainan Island in antiquity were “navigating” or “exploiting” the South China Sea, said Li.
However, Hainan is in the upper, northern tract of the sea, and it would be just as reasonable to infer that all surrounding countries in the region could make similar claims, Li added.
Arabs, Southeast Asians traders
Li also highlighted that when discussing sea routes in the South China Sea, known as the Maritime Silk Road, it is important to focus on the voyages made across the open ocean.
One Chinese expedition crossed the isthmus of modern day south Thailand en route to a kingdom in present day India, Li explained, citing a passage from a nearly 2,000-year-old text written during China’s Han Dynasty, which is the oldest surviving record of a Chinese expedition sent through the South China Sea.
The Indian kingdom had previously sent tribute across the South China Sea to the Han rulers, and the Chinese expedition was meant to be a reciprocal diplomatic gesture of respect.
Li added that the Indian kingdom’s initial crossing of the sea is clear evidence that the Maritime Silk Road had already become a major route for East and South Asian societies.
Additionally, these records show that Chinese envoys traveled abroad on foreign ships.
In the following centuries, records note that vessels from Southeast Asia, India and Iran regularly arrived at southern Chinese ports after crossing the South China Sea.
On the other hand, there are only a few accounts before the Tang dynasty (618-907) of Chinese people traveling by sea, and most of these were monks on foreign ships.
Li mentioned that it was only around the Song dynasty (960-1279) that China began producing large numbers of merchant vessels capable of crossing the open ocean.
By this time, Arab and Southeast Asian merchants were already using the South China Sea extensively, creating the well-known maritime trade routes that later famous Chinese explorers, like Zheng He, would follow.
2. Did international treaties stipulate that several disputed archipelagos lie outside the territory of the Philippines?
Regarding the present-day dispute between China and the Philippines over the Second Thomas Shoal and Scarborough Shoal, Wu Shicun from the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said in the documentary that the maritime western boundaries of the Philippines are delineated at 118 degrees east by a series of international treaties.
He added that both disputed shoals lie west of this boundary and therefore do not belong to the Philippines.
This is partly true.
The 1898 Treaty of Paris was signed between the U.S. and Spain following the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898.
The treaty ceded the entirety of the then Spanish controlled Philippines to the U.S. and delineated the eastern range of islands to be handed over as lying between a longitude of 118 degrees east to 127 degrees east.
The later treaty between the U.S. and Britain delineating maritime borders between the then U.S.-controlled Philippines and British- controlled Borneo also marked an approximate longitude of 118 degrees east as the westernmost boundary of the Philippines.
The U.S. State Department has historical records detailing the baseline of the Philippines maritime boundaries. (Screenshot/U.S. Department of State, LIS No. 33 – Philippines Straight Baselines )
However, Li Woteng noted that a clause in the 1900 Treaty of Washington – a followup agreement between the U.S. and Spain which addressed certain unresolved issues in the Treaty of Paris – further stipulated that Spain relinquished all claims to “any and all islands lying outside the lines” noted in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.
Li referred to this as a “pocket” treaty that was meant to ensure that any and all islands belonging to the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era would be handed over to the U.S., regardless of whether they were within the boundaries stipulated by the 1898 Treaty of Paris.
This clause was not mentioned by Wu. If the shoals were considered part of the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era, they may have been transferred to U.S. control along with the Philippines.
3. Does China possess more convincing historical evidence than the Philippines?
The documentary criticized the Philippines for using a 200-year-old “unofficial map” from the Spanish colonial era as evidence of its sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal since ancient times. It instead pointed to a 300-year-old Chinese fishermen’s navigation manual as more convincing evidence.
However, this lacks historical context.
While it claims the Chinese fishermen’s navigation manual is “strong evidence” that the disputed islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times, the manual was never officially commissioned by any Chinese government.
In contrast, the so-called unofficial map of the Philippines was created by the Spanish polymath missionary Murillo Velarde at the request of the then governor-general of the Philippines, Valdez Tamon, following an order from the King of Spain in 1733 to draw the first complete scientific map of the Spanish territory.
The map remained the standard chart of the Philippines for a long time after its completion. A digitized version of the map is available on the U.S. Library of Congress website.
Velarde’s map of the Philippines (Screenshot/U.S. Library of Congress website)
Li, an ethnic Chinese expert on the South China Sea, stated that even if China doesn’t recognize the map drawn by Velarde as evidence of Philippine rule over Scarborough Shoal, it at least proves that the Philippines was aware of the shoal at that time.
Expeditions organized by Spain to investigate and survey the island in 1792 and 1800 could also be regarded as evidence of “effective dominion” under international law, Li added.
4. Were China’s claims to the South China Sea unchallenged by the international community?
The documentary noted that an administrative map released by the Republic of China in 1948 that includes several currently disputed islands in the South China Sea within China’s maritime borders went unchallenged by other countries at the time.
The Republic of China, or simply China, was a sovereign state based on mainland China from 1912 to 1949 prior to the government’s relocation to Taiwan, where it continues to be based today.
But this is partly true. While no country directly challenged the map at the time, several countries had already made claims to many of the islands included in the map.
In a 1996 paper by American scholar Daniel Dzurek, focusing on the issue of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, it was noted that both Japan and France had sent several missions around the islands. France, in particular, claimed sovereignty over several islands in the region – claims that were later disputed by China.
Li believes that the most likely reason no country challenged China’s claims at the time was that nobody knew about them.
While the maps were all published in Chinese-language newspapers, they were not published prominently.
Even if other countries noticed the announcement at the time, they were probably unclear about its significance, Li explained.
“[The Republic of China] did not declare what the eleven-dash line means, and China to this day has not explicitly stated the exact meaning of the nine-dash line,” said Li.
The nine-dash line, referred to as the eleven-dash line by Taiwan, is a set of delineations on various maps that accompanied the claims of China and Taiwan in the South China Sea.
While countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines did not officially dispute China’s claimed sovereign area in the South China Sea as outlined in the map, they have declared sovereignty over particular islands and archipelagos in the region.
For instance, in 1950 the Philippines began to assert its claim to sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, and in 1956, it explicitly claimed sovereignty over them. Additionally, at the 1951 San Francisco Conference, post-independence Vietnam (represented by the Bao Dai regime) also put forward its claim of sovereignty over the Xisha and Spratly Islands.
Therefore, Li believes it is clear that the documentary’s emphasis on the fact that “no countries have objections to the eleven-dash line” is not sufficient evidence to prove there were no disputes over the islands and sea areas.
5. Did the U.S. smear China and attempt to build a military base on the Spratly Islands?
Herman Tiu-Laurel, president of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute, said in the documentary that the purpose of the U.S. Myoushuu Project – a Stanford University research project – was to discredit China’s international reputation and establish a joint military base of operations in the Spratly Islands, as part of a first line of island chain bases surrounding China.
But this claim lacks evidence.
While the U.S. and the Philippines announced U.S. military access to four training sites in the Philippines as part of an expansion in bilateral military cooperation in 2023, the Spratly Islands are not included among these sites.
Project Myoushuu is designed to research Chinese tactics used in the South China Sea and document Chinese encroachment in the area.
It is part of the broader Gordian Knot Center at Stanford University, a research center specializing in national security innovation established under the auspices of the U.S. Office of Naval Research.
Project Myoushuu is a Stanford research project focused on documenting Chinese encroachment into the South China Sea. (Screenshot/Gordian Knot Center Website)
AFCL has previously debunked similar claims about U.S. plans to build military bases in the South China Sea.
6. Did international treaties following World War II delegate which country held sovereignty over the South China Sea?
The documentary also claimed that following World War II, the Allies’ decision not to contest China’s control over various islands in the South China Sea was at least a tacit admission of China’s territorial claims over the area.
This claim is highly contestable, with the key point of contention being the wording of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, also known as the Treaty of San Francisco, signed in 1951.
Neither the government of the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China were signatories to the treaty.
In the second article of the treaty, Japan renounced any claims to its former imperial territories held before the war, including the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.
The original wording of the Treaty of Peace with Japan did not specify what countries hold sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or the Paracel Islands. (Screenshot/U.N. website)
However, the treaty itself did not specify or affirm which countries would exercise sovereignty over these territories.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Rita Cheng for Asia Fact Check Lab.
North Korea fired two ballistic missiles over the sea off its east coast on Monday, said South Korea’s military, after the North vowed to take countermeasures against a joint military exercise held by South Korea, the United States and Japan.
One short-range ballistic missile was launched from the Jangyon area in South Hwanghae Province at about 5:05 a.m. in a northeastern direction, said the South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, or JCS.
Another unidentified ballistic missile was launched at around 5:15 a.m, it added, without providing further details.
“While strengthening our monitoring and vigilance against additional launches, our military is maintaining a full-readiness posture while sharing North Korean ballistic missile data with U.S. and Japanese authorities,” the JCS said in a text message to reporters.
The North vowed on Sunday to take “offensive and overwhelming countermeasures” to protect its sovereignty as it condemned South Korea, the United States and Japan for their recent joint military exercises.
North Korea will “never overlook the moves of the U.S. and its followers to strengthen the military bloc … but firmly defend the sovereignty, security and interests of the state and peace in the region through offensive and overwhelming countermeasures,” the North’s foreign ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
The ministry did not elaborate on what it meant by countermeasures.
On Saturday, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan wrapped up their first, three-day trilateral multi-domain military exercise, codenamed “Freedom Edge,” aimed at strengthening their deterrence against North Korean threats.
The three countries have staged combined maritime and aerial exercises before, but Freedom Edge was the first trilateral exercise held across multiple domains, including air, maritime, underwater and cyber.
Monday’s launch came five days after North Korea fired a ballistic missile over the sea off its east coast.
The North claimed the next day to have successfully conducted a multiple warhead missile test but the South dismissed that as a “deception,” saying the launch ended in failure when the missile exploded in midair.
The latest launch comes amid deepening military cooperation between North Korea and Russia after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a “comprehensive strategic partnership” treaty during a summit last month in Pyongyang.
The pact includes a pledge by the two countries to offer military assistance “without delay” if either is attacked.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.
Chinese coast guard ship CCG 5901, dubbed “The Monster” for its size, has conducted a patrol along the so-called nine-dash line that China drew to claim most of the South China Sea, said maritime experts.
The vessel appears to have returned to base in Hainan island after a ten-day tour through neighboring countries’ waters.
“The patrol serves the purpose of reaffirming China’s nine-dash line, but also sending a warning message to the Philippines as it passed through six sensitive Philippine locations,” said Ray Powell, director of the SeaLight project at Stanford University, who has tracked the ship’s movement over the last ten days in a map that shows a U-shaped path resembling the line.
The CCG 5901’s path between June 17-27, next to a map of China’s self-claimed nine-dash line. (Ray Powell/RFA)
Manila and Beijing have been confronting each other over some disputed reefs in the South China Sea that lie within Philippine waters but also inside the nine-dash line.
The self-claimed line is described by Chinese scholars as “historic” and is featured on Chinese maps as a set of nine, sometimes 11, segments that encircle up to 90% of the regional waterway.
Beijing uses it to demarcate territorial claims over most of the South China Sea, including sections that fall within areas claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries.
An international arbitration tribunal in a case brought by the Philippines in 2016 ruled that China’s claim to “historic rights” is unlawful, but Beijing declared the ruling “null and void” and refused to recognize it.
China has been making efforts to reinforce the nine-dash line, especially with the presence of its large coast guard and maritime militia fleets.
The 12,000-ton CCG 5901 is currently the biggest coast guard vessel in the world – double the size of a U.S. Navy Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser.
The ship, armed with heavy machine guns, also has a helicopter platform and a hangar large enough to accommodate larger rotary wing aircraft.
The last time “The Monster” turned on its AIS, or automatic information system, was at 9:50 p.m. UTC on June 26, when it was about 100 nautical miles (185 km) east of Sanya in southern Hainan, according to data from the tracking website MarineTraffic.
MarineTraffic uses AIS signals to track ships but the Chinese vessel has mostly been running “dark”, or not broadcasting AIS, since leaving the Sanya base on June 17, 2024.
‘Vexing problem’ for ASEAN
Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela has confirmed that the CCG 5901 was last monitored in the morning local time at a distance of 46 nautical miles (85 km) from Sanya.
In a post on the social platform X, Tarriela said that using Canada’s dark vessel detection technology, his force has recreated the past track of the Chinese coast guard vessel.
According to the spokesman, the CCG 5901 “directly encroached upon the territorial waters” of the Philippines, “violating our sovereignty.”
On June 19, it was spotted at Thitu, or Pag-Asa island, under the Philippines’ control. It spent a night at Subi Reef – an artificial island that China has militarized – before passing Union Banks and entering Malaysia’s waters on June 20.
Malaysian law enforcement ships were shadowing the Chinese vessels in the waters near Luconia Shoals, also claimed by China, on June 21-23.
On June 24, the vessel was patrolling near the Second Thomas Shoal, known locally as Ayungin Shoal, where a week prior the Philippine military and the Chinese coast guard had a tense stand-off resulting in a Filipino sailor losing a finger.
The shoal is only 195 km (121 miles) from the Philippines’ Palawan island but lies within China’s nine-dashed line.
Earlier this year, the CCG 5901 made several intrusive long-term tours near some oil fields in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, orEEZ, where Hanoi has exclusive access to the natural resources in the waters and in the seabed.
The presence of Chinese coast guard vessels, including “The Monster,” in regional countries’ EEZs is “an old and increasingly vexing problem which ASEAN should, but unfortunately have no coordinated response to,” said Kwa Chong Guan, senior fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
ASEAN members Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam all have overlapping EEZs in the South China Sea.
“ASEAN needs new policy initiatives on the South China Sea,” Kwa told BenarNews, a RFA-affiliated news service. “Perhaps Malaysia as the next Chair of ASEAN in 2025 could rise to the occasion and lead the association to propose some.”
BenarNews reporter Nisha David in Kuala Lumpur contributed to this report.
Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA and BenarNews Staff.
North Korea test fired a ballistic missile over the sea off its east coast on Wednesday, but it exploded in the air soon after the launch, South Korea’s military said.
The missile was launched from an area in or near the North Korean capital Pyongyang at around 5:30 a.m., said the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, or JCS.
A JCS official told reporters that the military was considering the possibility that North Korea had launched a hypersonic missile, adding that smoke appeared to emanate from the missile more than on previous test launches.
The official noted the missile could possibly have been powered by solid propellants.
Compared with liquid-fuel missiles, solid-fuel missiles are thought to be more difficult to detect before they are launched because they require fewer steps to prepare, including no need for fuel injection.
After the missile launch, the nuclear envoys of South Korea, the United States and Japan discussed efforts to coordinate their response to North Korea, according to South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“The three sides condemned the North’s ballistic missile launch as a clear violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and said they pose a serious threat to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the international community,” the ministry said in a press release.
The launch came after North Korea criticized the arrival in South Korea of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and warned of taking “overwhelming and new” deterrence measures against what it called a “provocative” act.
The aircraft carrier arrived in the city of Busan on Saturday ahead of a trilateral exercise with South Korea and Japan.
The launch comes after North Korea signed a comprehensive strategic cooperation treaty with Russia during a summit last week between Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
As part of their pact, the two leaders agreed to offer military assistance “without delay” if either is attacked.
North Korea sent trash-carrying balloons to the South on Tuesday night for the second straight day, the latest in a series of balloon flights by both sides that have raised tension on their heavily fortified border.
Since late last month, North Korea is estimated to have launched more than 2,000 such balloons in what it said was a response to a anti-Pyongyang propaganda leaflets sent by North Korean defectors and activists in South Korea.
North Korea test-fired about 10 short-range ballistic missiles into the sea off its east coast on May 30 while launching GPS jamming attacks against the South.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned South Korea that sending weapons to Ukraine would be a “very big mistake” after South Korea said it would consider doing so in response to a pact between Russia and North Korea to come to each other’s aid if attacked.
U.S. ally South Korea announced on Thursday it would reconsider its stance on arms to Ukraine in response to North Korea and Russia signing a treaty the previous day that includes a mutual pledge to provide immediate military assistance if either is attacked.
“As for the supply of lethal weapons to the combat zone in Ukraine, it would be a very big mistake. I hope it will not happen. If it does, then we too will then make the respective decisions, which South Korea’s current leadership is unlikely to be pleased with,” Putin told a press conference on Thursday during a visit to Vietnam, Russia’s Sputnik news agency reported.
South Korea’s assistance to Ukraine has included first-aid kits, medicine, portable mine detectors and protective gear but it has not supplied weapons in line with a policy of not providing lethal aid to countries engaged in conflict.
During Putin’s first visit to North Korea in 24 years, he and leader Kim Jong Un, agreed to offer military assistance “without delay” if either is attacked under a new partnership treaty signed after their summit on Wednesday.
South Korea’s National Security Adviser Chang Ho-jin condemned both countries on Thursday, saying that Seoul would have to think again about supplying arms.
“We plan to reconsider the issue of arms support to Ukraine,” Chang said in a press briefing at the presidential office.
He added that any cooperation that directly or indirectly aided North Korea’s military enhancement was a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and would be subject to international scrutiny and sanctions.
“The government expresses grave concern and condemns the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement between North Korea and Russia, which aims to strengthen mutual military and economic cooperation,” Chang said.
John Kirby, the spokesperson for U.S. President Joe Biden’s National Security Council, said the announcement by Russia and North Korea of their pact to come to each other’s help if attacked was “no surprise” but it boded poorly for the people of Ukraine and the Korean peninsula.
“Our view is that this agreement is also a sign of Russia’s desperation,” Kirby added.
“I mean, they’re reaching out to North Korea for missiles, and they’re getting drones from Iran. They don’t have a lot of friends in the world.”
North Korea has supplied Russia with large amounts of weapons for its war in Ukraine, in particular artillery rounds and ballistic missiles, the United States has said, though both Russia and North Korea deny that.
Edited by RFA Staff.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Taejun Kang for RFA.
The Philippines’ military chief on Wednesday demanded that China return firearms its coast guard seized from Filipino troops during what he described as harassment of the country’s resupply mission to Second Thomas Shoal in which one Filipino sailor lost a finger.
The incident Monday set off a war of words, with the United States condemning “escalatory and irresponsible actions” by the Chinese Coast Guard and Beijing accusing the Philippine side of deliberately causing a collision.
Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. on Wednesday visited the Armed Forces of the Philippines Western Command, or WESCOM, in Palawan, a province fronting the South China Sea. He said he was there to rally the troops, pinning a medal to Navy man Jeffrey Facundo who lost a digit in Monday’s incident.
Local media in Palawan earlier reported that seven other Filipinos sustained minor injuries when the China Coast Guard intercepted a rigid-hulled inflatable boat belonging to the Philippine Navy in the vicinity of Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin and called Ren’ai Jiao by Beijing.
“Our action now is that we are demanding that the Chinese return our rifles and our equipment. And we are also demanding from them to pay for the damages that they have caused,” Brawner said in Palawan. Transcripts of his comments were made available to reporters.
“We cannot allow them to just take and destroy our equipment. For me, this is piracy already because they boarded our boat illegally, they (took) our equipment,” Brawner said. “Again, they are like pirates for doing such actions.”
This handout photo shows what the Philippines armed forces says is communication and navigational equipment smashed by Chinese personnel after they forcibly boarded the AFP’s 9-meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat on June 17, 2024. [Armed Forces of the Philippines handout]
The Armed Forces of the Philippines claimed its vessel was forcibly towed, looted and damaged, and that Chinese personnel used machetes, knives and pikes to threaten sailors and damage equipment.
Differing accounts
The incident was first reported by the Chinese press, which accused the Philippine side of setting off the confrontation when it ignored warnings and proceeded to Ayungin, where Manila maintains a rusting Navy ship that was purposely grounded there in 1999 to serve as its outpost in the disputed region.
At a press conference in Beijing on Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian repeated that what caused the incident was “deliberate intrusion into the waters of Ren’ai Jiao” and that “the law enforcement action taken by China Coast Guard on the scene was professional and restrained.”
Rear Adm. Alfonso Torres, the WESCOM chief, said the CCG confiscated seven rifles aboard the Philippine Navy boat they intercepted. They also destroyed the boat’s communications and navigational equipment as well as the personal mobile phones of the Filipino personnel.
Torres said the firearms that were seized were disassembled and in gun cases because troops have strict instructions not to show or handle firearms in the vicinity of the disputed shoal, to dial down the tension. He said one of the CCG boats rammed the Philippine Navy boat at high speed, injuring Facundo who lost his right thumb.
The Chinese armed with blades and machetes then boarded the Filipino vessel and pointed weapons at the Filipinos, who fought back, though outmatched, Brawner said, adding that the CCG boats outnumbered the Filipinos eight to one.
Before disembarking, the Chinese personnel punctured the Philippine boat with a bladed weapon, he added.
While there were guns and weapons aboard the BRP Sierra Madre, the Philippine Navy decided not to use them because “we don’t want a war to break out,” Brawner said.
In this handout photo, a Chinese coast guard member is described as brandishing an axe at Philippine troops on a rotation and resupply mission to a disputed reef in the South China Sea, June 17, 2024. [Armed Forces of the Philippines handout]
“The core issue remains — the illegal presence and actions of Chinese vessels within our jurisdiction. The continued aggressive behavior of the Chinese Coast Guard is what escalates tensions in the area,” Brawner said.
The incident was the third this year in which Philippine personnel have been hurt on missions to rotate and resupply troops stationed at Second Thomas Shoal. On March 5 and March 23, Filipino crew members were injured when their supply boats were hit by water cannons from Chinese vessels.
Tensions between China and the Philippines have notched up in recent months in the resource-richSouth China Sea, where six parties hold overlapping claims. Beijing’s are the most expansive, including more than sea, according to analysts.
China has been blocking the Philippines’ efforts to bring supplies to the marines stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre, saying the voyages violate China’s jurisdiction despite the reef being located well inside Manila’s exclusive economic zone.
Jojo Riñoza contributed to this report from Manila
BenarNews is an online news agency affiliated with Radio Free Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jason Gutierrez for BenarNews.
The Philippines’ military chief on Wednesday demanded that China return firearms its coast guard seized from Filipino troops during what he described as harassment of the country’s resupply mission to Second Thomas Shoal in which one Filipino sailor lost a finger.
The incident Monday set off a war of words, with the United States condemning “escalatory and irresponsible actions” by the Chinese Coast Guard and Beijing accusing the Philippine side of deliberately causing a collision.
Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. on Wednesday visited the Armed Forces of the Philippines Western Command, or WESCOM, in Palawan, a province fronting the South China Sea. He said he was there to rally the troops, pinning a medal to Navy man Jeffrey Facundo who lost a digit in Monday’s incident.
Local media in Palawan earlier reported that seven other Filipinos sustained minor injuries when the China Coast Guard intercepted a rigid-hulled inflatable boat belonging to the Philippine Navy in the vicinity of Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin and called Ren’ai Jiao by Beijing.
“Our action now is that we are demanding that the Chinese return our rifles and our equipment. And we are also demanding from them to pay for the damages that they have caused,” Brawner said in Palawan. Transcripts of his comments were made available to reporters.
“We cannot allow them to just take and destroy our equipment. For me, this is piracy already because they boarded our boat illegally, they (took) our equipment,” Brawner said. “Again, they are like pirates for doing such actions.”
This handout photo shows what the Philippines armed forces says is communication and navigational equipment smashed by Chinese personnel after they forcibly boarded the AFP’s 9-meter Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat on June 17, 2024. [Armed Forces of the Philippines handout]
The Armed Forces of the Philippines claimed its vessel was forcibly towed, looted and damaged, and that Chinese personnel used machetes, knives and pikes to threaten sailors and damage equipment.
Differing accounts
The incident was first reported by the Chinese press, which accused the Philippine side of setting off the confrontation when it ignored warnings and proceeded to Ayungin, where Manila maintains a rusting Navy ship that was purposely grounded there in 1999 to serve as its outpost in the disputed region.
At a press conference in Beijing on Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian repeated that what caused the incident was “deliberate intrusion into the waters of Ren’ai Jiao” and that “the law enforcement action taken by China Coast Guard on the scene was professional and restrained.”
Rear Adm. Alfonso Torres, the WESCOM chief, said the CCG confiscated seven rifles aboard the Philippine Navy boat they intercepted. They also destroyed the boat’s communications and navigational equipment as well as the personal mobile phones of the Filipino personnel.
Torres said the firearms that were seized were disassembled and in gun cases because troops have strict instructions not to show or handle firearms in the vicinity of the disputed shoal, to dial down the tension. He said one of the CCG boats rammed the Philippine Navy boat at high speed, injuring Facundo who lost his right thumb.
The Chinese armed with blades and machetes then boarded the Filipino vessel and pointed weapons at the Filipinos, who fought back, though outmatched, Brawner said, adding that the CCG boats outnumbered the Filipinos eight to one.
Before disembarking, the Chinese personnel punctured the Philippine boat with a bladed weapon, he added.
While there were guns and weapons aboard the BRP Sierra Madre, the Philippine Navy decided not to use them because “we don’t want a war to break out,” Brawner said.
In this handout photo, a Chinese coast guard member is described as brandishing an axe at Philippine troops on a rotation and resupply mission to a disputed reef in the South China Sea, June 17, 2024. [Armed Forces of the Philippines handout]
“The core issue remains — the illegal presence and actions of Chinese vessels within our jurisdiction. The continued aggressive behavior of the Chinese Coast Guard is what escalates tensions in the area,” Brawner said.
The incident was the third this year in which Philippine personnel have been hurt on missions to rotate and resupply troops stationed at Second Thomas Shoal. On March 5 and March 23, Filipino crew members were injured when their supply boats were hit by water cannons from Chinese vessels.
Tensions between China and the Philippines have notched up in recent months in the resource-richSouth China Sea, where six parties hold overlapping claims. Beijing’s are the most expansive, including more than sea, according to analysts.
China has been blocking the Philippines’ efforts to bring supplies to the marines stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre, saying the voyages violate China’s jurisdiction despite the reef being located well inside Manila’s exclusive economic zone.
Jojo Riñoza contributed to this report from Manila
BenarNews is an online news agency affiliated with Radio Free Asia.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jason Gutierrez for BenarNews.
A claim emerged in both English and Chinese-language social media posts that the U.S. state of South Dakota banned the sale of sliced watermelons because it is antisemitic.
But the claim is false. Keyword searches found no official or credible reports to back the claim, which has been debunked by several international news organizations.
The claim was shared on China’s Weibo social media platform on May 24, 2024.
“South Dakota bans the sale of cut watermelons. The reason? because it’s antisemitic. Watermelons are black, white, red and green, which happen to be the colors of the Palestinian flag,” the post reads in part.
“Therefore, selling sliced watermelons in public is tantamount to supporting Palestine, and supporting Palestine is antisemitism,” it reads.
Over the past few months, watermelon has become a symbol of solidarity for Palestinians for its colors that match their flag, according to PBS Newshour.
The colors of sliced watermelon — with red pulp, green-white rind and black seeds — are the same as those of the Palestinian flag.
Similar claims have been shared on Weibo and X, formerly known as Twitter.
Chinese netizens on Weibo and X posted claimed that South Dakota ordered a state ban on the sale of cut watermelons because of perceived anti-Semitic overtones. (Screenshots/Weibo and X)
But the claim is false.
Keyword searches found no official or credible reports to back the claim.
The claim has been debunked by multiple international news organizations, including USA Today and Reuters.
Reuters cited Ian Fury, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s chief of communications, as saying that there was “no truth” to the posts.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.
Eight Philippine naval personnel were injured, one of them severely, on Monday when Chinese vessels blocked a Philippine resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly Islands, Philippine media reported.
The incident is the third this year in which Philippine service members have been hurt in confrontations with Chinese boats, and signals more aggressive tactics by China in its territorial dispute with the U.S. ally.
Philippine media reported that a member of the navy’s Special Operations Group lost a finger during a confrontation with Chinese troops. Six Philippine vessels were on a routine mission to deliver supplies to the BRP Sierra Madre outpost on the reef, which is called Ayungin Shoal in Tagalog, when they were intercepted.
Chinese soldiers targeted all six vessels, as well as their inflatable craft , and seized eight high-powered firearms from one boat, media reported on Tuesday.
None of the Philippine vessels reached the shoal due to the “dangerous maneuvers, including ramming and towing” by the Chinese vessels, which included boats from the navy, the China Coast Guard and the maritime militia, media reported.
Philippine government officials said in a statement that the mission “was disrupted by the illegal and aggressive actions of Chinese maritime forces.” They did not elaborate
China ’s rejected the accusation. Its foreign ministry said that China “took necessary control measures to stop the Philippine vessels in accordance with the law” and that their maneuvers were “professional, restrained, justified, and lawful.”
U.S. Pentagon officials confirmed to the U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) News that a Philippine sailor suffered severe injuries during the mission that also resulted in damage to Philippine vessels.
The U.S. State Department condemned China’s actions, which “reflect consistent disregard for the safety of Filipinos and for international law in the South China Sea.”
Dangerous actions
The incident was the third this year in which Philippine personnel have been hurt on missions to rotate and resupply troops stationed at the Second Thomas Shoal.
On March 5 and March 23, Filipino crew members were injured when their supply boats were hit by water cannons from Chinese vessels.
Analysts say the water cannon has become a favored tool of Chinese law enforcement agencies at sea, not only at the Second Thomas Shoal but also at Scarborough Shoal, another South China Sea hotspot, allowing Chinese forces to act more aggressively without using the force of firearms.
In a video from March supplied by the Philippine Coast Guard, two Chinese vessels were seen firing water cannons from opposite sides of Philippine resupply vessel Unaizah May 4, causing it damage.
“It’s mainly for firefighting since many coastguards have this role, but water cannon is also used for other purposes – including for maritime law enforcement,” said Collin Koh, a regional maritime expert.
“The use of water cannon falls short of use of kinetic force, by which we normally refer to as firepower weapons,” Koh said, pointing to what he sees as a “loophole” in regulating the use of water cannons in maritime disputes.
Koh, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said that water cannon, “depending on the range at which it’s fired, the nature of the target and especially the water pressure itself, can potentially maim or kill.”
“And if water cannon damages the vessel’s navigation system, it could heighten the risk of collision with other vessels, hence creating a physical hazard.”
Yet as navies typically don’t mount water cannon on vessels, firing one does not constitute an armed attack – a basis to invoke a Mutual Defense Treaty between Washington and Manila.
“Water cannons are certainly effective since China’s objective is to control smaller Philippine ships,” said Ray Powell, director of the SeaLight project at Stanford University in California who has been watching developments in the South China Sea.
“But not so effective for winning hearts and minds.”
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
China said a Philippine supply vessel “dangerously” approached its ship near a disputed atoll in the South China Sea on Monday, causing a collision but the Philippines dismissed the complaint as “deceptive and misleading.”
The Chinese coast guard said in a statement a supply ship from the Philippines “illegally intruded into the waters adjacent to Ren’ai Reef,” using the Chinese name for the Second Thomas Shoal.
The Philippines deliberately ran a World War II-era warship, the BRP Sierra Madre, aground on the shoal in 1999 to serve as a military outpost. It runs regular rotation and resupply missions to the shoal, known as Ayungin in the Philippines.
The Chinese coast guard added the Philippine supply ship ignored its warnings, violated international regulations for preventing collisions at sea and “deliberately and dangerously” approached the Chinese vessel in an “unprofessional manner, resulting in a collision.”
“The responsibility lies entirely with the Philippines,” it said.
The Philippine military said in response that it would not discuss operational details of what it calls “legal humanitarian rotation and resupply mission” at the shoal.
“We will not dignify the deceptive and misleading claims of the China coast guard,” it said in a statement, adding that the main issue remained “the illegal presence and actions of Chinese vessels” within the Philippines’ EEZ.
The Chinese actions not only infringe the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the Philippines but also escalate tensions in the region, it stated.
Tensions between China and the Philippines at the shoal have in recent months been the most serious in years in the South China Sea, where six parties hold overlapping claims with China’s claim the most expansive, including more than 80% of the waters.
New order
China has been blocking the Philippines’ efforts to bring supplies to the marines stationed on the BRP Sierra Madre, saying the voyages violate China’s jurisdiction despite the reef being located well inside Manila’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
In March, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels were accused of firing a water cannon at a Philippine supply boat near the shoal, causing significant damage to the vessel and injuring its crew.
It is unclear whether a water cannon was used in the Monday incident and what damage the alleged collision caused to the vessels involved.
The Chinese coast guard has issued a new order, which became effective on June 15, that allows its force to detain foreign vessels and crew suspected of “trespassing” into Chinese-claimed waters.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
A claim emerged in media posts that the mayor of the South Korean city of Daegue had asked China for giant pandas as a gift.
But the claim is false. The mayor only requested that the pandas be leased. In 1982, China announced that it would no longer gift pandas to other countries due to the rare animals’ shrinking natural habitat and would only lease them.
The claim was shared on pro-Beijing media outlet Guancha on June 3, 2024.
“On May 31, Chinese Ambassador to South Korea Xing Haiming visited Daegu to meet with Mayor Hong Jun-pyo. Yonhap news agency reported that Hong expressed his hope that China would present a pair of giant pandas to the Daegu Great Park, which will be completed in 2027,” the report reads in part.
The claim was published by other media outlets, including Hong Kong’s Sing Tao Daily and Russia’s Sputnik News.
Pro-Beijing media outlets reported that Daegu’s mayor requested a pair of giant pandas from China. (Screenshots/Guancha, Sputnik and Sing Tao Daily)
The news quickly became the hottest topic on China’s Weibo social media platform. Netizens criticized South Korea’s requests as “shameless” and “begging”.
News of the request soon sparked interest and critiques by Chinese netizens on Weibo. (Screenshot/Weibo)
But the claim is false.
Source of the claim
Guancha cited a report published by South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency.
Keyword searches found that Yonhap did publish a story on May 31, containing the phrase “gift giant pandas” in its headline.
However, as of June 3, Yonhap had updated the report and changed the phrase to “asked China to lease giant pandas”.
The wording of Yonhap’s original report claiming that the mayor of Daegu had asked China to “gift” a pair of giant pandas (left) was later amended to the more accurate “lease” (right). (Screenshot/Yonhap News Agency)
A Daegu city official told AFCL that they had only asked China to lease a pair of pandas, adding that the term “gifting” was a mistake by Yonhap, which had since been corrected.
In 1982, China announced that due to the rapid loss of suitable habitat for giant pandas, it would stop gifting pandas to other countries and would only lease them.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environmentL. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.
The Philippine navy is “monitoring” Vietnam’s island building activities in the West Philippine Sea — part of the South China Sea within Manila’s exclusive economic zone, a naval official said.
The spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea, Commodore Roy Vincent Trinidad, told a radio station that both the navy and the department of foreign affairs were watching the situation.
Manila claims jurisdiction over a group of reefs and rocks, called the Kalayaan island group in the Philippines. Most of the reefs are within the Spratly archipelago, which is contested by several countries in the region.
The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) think tank said in a recent report that in six months Vietnam had created as much new land in the South China Sea as the previous two years combined.
Vietnam has reclaimed a total area of 955 hectares, about half the area that China has built up throughout the years, according to AMTI.
Namyit Island on May 16, 2024 (AMTI/Maxar Technologies)
The Philippines’ measured response to the report of Vietnamese land reclamation in areas that it also claims comes after a period of intensifying confrontation between Manila and Beijing over other features in disputed waters.
The Philippines and Vietnam have “friendly relations,” Trinidad told the Super Radyo dzBB station. “Vietnam does not initiate illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive actions against us, unlike China,” he added.
Earlier, another Philippine official said that Vietnam was reclaiming features that it occupied before a 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
“Vietnam focuses on minding their own affairs,” Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela told reporters.
“They do not engage in harassing our fishermen or illegally deploying coast guard vessels and maritime militia in the waters surrounding our occupied maritime features,” Tarriela added.
Divisive issue
The Philippines has in the past issued a formal diplomatic protest against Vietnam’s island building, which was the usual practice in response to any such foreign activity in the West Philippine Sea, said Jay Batongbacal, a maritime legal expert.
“It was more about the concern over the environmental impact of such activities as the Philippines gives great value to marine habitats and species diversity,” Batongbacal told RFA. “This has not affected Vietnam-Philippines relations overall.”
Botongbacal said the two countries had been engaged in constant dialogue as two claimants from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, in accordance with the 1992 ASEAN Declaration of Conduct for parties in the South China Sea and the 2002 Declaration of Conduct between the block and China.
Manila and Hanoi established a strategic partnership in 2015 and have been working together to manage their overlapping claims in the South China Sea amid new maritime challenges posed by their big neighbor China.
The Philippine Ambassador to Vietnam, Meynardo LB. Montealegre, on Wednesday called Vietnam “our twin brother in the ASEAN region,” and that the two countries are “sharing the South China Sea as our common space for growth, our life-giving source for development and equally essential for our co-existence.”
Yet Vietnam’s recent efforts could become a divisive issue between them.
A recent article by Rigoberto Tiglao in the Manila Times named Vietnam the Philippines’ “other threat.”
“As sure as the sun rises in the East, if China vacates its occupied artificial islands in the South China Sea, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam will be landing its troops on each and every island, and it has been preparing to do so for a decade,” he wrote.
The Manila Times, commonly seen as pro-China, previously published reports on Vietnam’s militarization of its outposts in the South China Sea, citing leaked documents from its defense ministry. There has been no independent verification of the documents and experts casted doubt on their authenticity.
However, after the articles were published, a group of Filipinos held a protest and tore down Vietnam’s flag in front of its embassy in Manila, prompting Vietnamese officials to ask Philippine authorities to “handle the incident seriously.”
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
South Korea and Cuba announced on Wednesday that they have finalized plans to open embassies in Havana and Seoul, and will send diplomats within the week.
The development came as Cuba sent its first delegation to South Korea since the two countries agreed to normalize relations in February, a decision that took North Korea by surprise.
North Korea has traditionally regarded Cuba as one of its closest “socialist brethren,” with state media often characterizing the Caribbean island as a success story despite the challenges it faces under the U.S.-enforced trade embargo.
The delegation, led by Carlos Miguel Pereira, director general of bilateral affairs at the Cuban foreign ministry, visited South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and held discussions with the Korean side led by Deputy Minister for Political Affairs Chung Byung-won.
During Wednesday’s meeting, Seoul and Havana agreed to cooperate on several different international and regional situations and to set up embassies as soon as possible, Lim Soo-suk, a South Korean foreign ministry spokesperson, told a news briefing.
Carlos Miguel Pereira, Director General of the Bilateral Affairs at the Cuban foreign ministry, speaks on a panel at the 2024 Korea-LAC Future Cooperation Forum, June 10, 2024 in Seoul. (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Korea via Youtube)
Deputy Minister Chung elaborated, saying that a temporary office would be opened within the first half of this year, with diplomatic staff to be dispatched to Havana later this week.
Director General Pereira, meanwhile, said that Cuban personnel began working in South Korea last month, and will open the Cuban Embassy soon.
Mario Alzugaray Rodriguez, deputy head of mission of the Cuban Embassy in China, visited South Korea in May to discuss the embassy opening with the South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was also part of the delegation and had the title “acting ambassador to South Korea.”
Chung reported prior to the meeting that discussions would also include inter-Korean relations.
Checkmate?
Cuba’s sudden overtures to South Korea should not necessarily be taken at face value because Havana still remains close to Russia, David Maxwell, vice president for the Center of Asia Pacific Strategy, told RFA Korean.
Maxwell noted that at the same time as the meeting in Seoul, four Russian warships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, had entered Havana harbor in Cuba.
“I worry about political warfare. Is Cuba really breaking from the axis of dictators?” Maxwell said. “What if Cuban relations with South Korea will be exploited over time to receive South Korean exports, particularly of high tech and dual use goods, that could then be transhipped to North Korea?”
Maxwell likened the geopolitical situation between North and South Korea to that of opponents in the Korean stone-capturing game baduk, known as go in Japan and weiqi in China.
“It appears that South Korea has captured a North Korean stone,” he said. ”But does this ‘diplomatic terrority’ really benefit South Korea in the long run? Only time will tell.”
But the establishment of relations between Havana and Seoul will not have any effects on inter-Korean relations, the Heritage Foundation’s Bruce Klingner told RFA.
“Cuba did not provide assistance to North Korea nor had significant trade with Pyongyang,” he said. “While Havana’s shift in relations between the Koreas was an embarrassment for Pyongyang as a loss of a socialist compatriot, the North Korean populace may not have been informed of the event.”
Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Hong Seung Wook and Kim So Young for RFA Korean.
Vietnam’s new President To Lam has asked that Beijing respect Hanoi’s rights and interests in disputed waters, days after Vietnamese officials protested against what they called “China’s illegal activities” in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Last Thursday, a Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson denounced the operation of the Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and said that Vietnam “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China to demand the ending of such operations.
To Lam, while not mentioning the Hai Yang 26, told Chinese ambassador to Vietnam Xiong Bo that the two neighbors should strictly implement bilateral agreements, better control and resolve disagreements at sea, as well as respect each other’s legitimate rights and interests, his office said in a statement .
The two countries should also actively seek appropriate ways to settle maritime disputes in accordance with international law, especially the U.N. Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), he said.
The new president stressed that Vietnam saw its relationship with China as a “strategic choice and top priority” of its foreign policy.
Lam was sworn in as Vietnam’s state president on May 22 amid an unprecedented reshuffle of the communist party’s leadership following the “burning furnace” anti-graft campaign initiated by party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.
Xiong Bo became the first foreign ambassador to pay Lam a courtesy call to congratulate him on his new post.
Hai Yang 26
In last week’s unusually strong rebuke, foreign ministry spokeswoman Pham Thu Hang said that Vietnam was “deeply concerned,” resolutely opposed, and demanded that China immediately stop the “illegal survey activities” of the Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s waters and not repeat them.
Hang told reporters in Hanoi that the Vietnamese government “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with the Chinese side over the case.
Chinese survey vessels have frequently operated in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone but it has seldom publicly protested, giving preference to quieter bilateral channels.
Caption: The Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 on an unspecified date. (Vietnam Foreign Ministry)
A Vietnamese analyst, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that the new leader – who was seen as a hard-liner because of his public security background — may want to show that he is not pro-China, as some critics say.
Another analyst, Hoang Viet, told RFA that the foreign ministry’s reaction was due to the severity of the event, as well as to partially direct attention to Vietnam amid increased tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.
Hai Yang 26 is one of nine Type 636A hydrographic survey vessels in service with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army navy.
This kind of survey ship is thought to be utilized by the navy for mapping the underwater topography map in areas where submarines operate, as well as to conduct marine surveys, such as the study of ocean acoustics.
The fact that Vietnam had “multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China over the vessel suggested it had been operating in Vietnam’s waters for a prolonged period.
China has yet to respond to Vietnam’s protest but a Chinese think tank, the South China Sea Probing Initiative, wrote on the social media platform X that the Hai Yang 26 only conducted a freedom of navigation operation, a type of patrol that China itself has deemed provocative on numerous occasions when conducted by other navies.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
South Korean soldiers fired warning shots after a dozen soldiers from North Korea crossed one of the world’s most fortified borders earlier this week, the South’s military said Tuesday.
The incident occurred at 12:30 p.m. on Sunday, as the soldiers crossed the military demarcation line, or MDL, that bisects the demilitarized zone, or DMZ, dividing the two Koreas, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said, adding that it was likely a mistake.
“The area near the DMZ is heavily wooded, and the MDL signs are not clearly visible,” Lee Sung Joon, a spokesperson for the joint chiefs, told reporters at a news briefing. “Therefore, (they) were moving through the bush in a situation where there were no clear paths, and the South Korean military had been observing them even before they got close to the MDL.”
After the warning shots were fired, the North Korean soldiers promptly crossed back over into North Korean territory, which Lee said resulted in the joint chiefs’ assessment that there was no intent to cross the MDL.
North Korean escapees prepare to release balloons carrying leaflets and a banner denouncing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for North Korea’s latest nuclear test, in Paju, near the border with North Korea, South Korea, on Sept. 15, 2016. (Ahn Young-joon/AP)
A joint chiefs of staff official told RFA Korean that the North Korean soldiers were a mere 50 meters inside South Korean territory and were there for only a short time. He said they were working with tools like pickaxes and it is assumed that they lost their way when they crossed.
‘Primary enemy’
The incident comes at a time when tensions are high on the Korean peninsula, with the North having this year defined the South as a primary enemy, and no longer referring to North and South Koreans as being “one race” – an ethno-nationalist, pro-unification phrase that has been used in both Koreas over the years.
Since then, the North has tested missiles several times, and recently floated trash-filled balloons over the border, a nod to South Korea-based civil groups’ decades-old practice of launching their own balloons filled with anti-regime leaflets.
South Korean soldiers examine various objects including what appeared to be trash from a balloon believed to have been sent by North Korea, in Incheon, South Korea, June 2, 2024. (Yonhap via Reuters)
The incident occurred on the same day that the South Korean military made loudspeaker broadcasts audible in North Korea in response to the trash balloons.
The joint chiefs said they would continue to monitor North Korean military movements and take “necessary measures in accordance with operational procedures.”
Common occurrence
Experts told RFA that border incursions like Sunday’s happen quite frequently and the South’s assessment of the situation was proper and justified.
“Incidents like this have been pretty common along the militarized zone for the entirety of the armistice,” said Sydney Seiler, the former national intelligence officer for North Korea at the National Intelligence Council, an U.S. government organization that bridges policymakers with the intelligence community.“It would be unnatural or it would be strange to think of this as anything more complex than what’s been described.”
A balloon believed to have been sent by North Korea, carrying various objects including what appeared to be trash and excrement, is seen over a rice field at Cheorwon, South Korea, May 29, 2024. (Yonhap via Reuters)
He said one could imagine that North Korea might have wanted to test how South Korea would respond, but suggested that idea was “far-fetched” considering the circumstances.
“Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer,” he said. “I don’t think it was a significant event.”
Gary Samore, the former White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, and Patrick Cronin, the Hudson Institute’s Asia-Pacific security chair, both told RFA that they accepted South Korea’s assessment of the incident.
Both also acknowledged that outside of Sunday’s incident, North Korea is currently increasing provocations with the South during a particularly tense period in inter-Korean relations.
“Dictators like to play this game of ‘chicken’ because only they know whether they are serious about the use of lethal force,” said Cronin. “Meanwhile, democratically elected leaders are subject to harsh reactions from public opinion, which can be easily manipulated into thinking that a strong defense might trigger open conflict.”
Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Edited by Eugene Whong and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Hong Seung Wook and Lee Sangmin for RFA Korean.
The powerful leader of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has warned South Korea of danger after it resumed cross-border propaganda broadcasts, the latest response in an series of tit-for-tat measures that has increased tension along their border.
North Korea last month began sending balloons carrying trash over the border into the South in response to earlier balloon flights by activists in the South who sent propaganda materials drifting into the North.
Both sides have used such tactics for decades but this recent round of actions has brought renewed tension to one of the world’s most sensitive and highly fortified frontiers.
Last week, South Korea suspended a 2018 pact aimed at reducing tension on the border and on Sunday it resumed propaganda broadcasts through loudspeakers into the North.
Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of the North Korean leader, denounced the South for what she called its “despicable political agitation” in comments broadcast by the Noth’s KCNA state news agency on Sunday and warned of a North Korean response.
“This is a prelude to a very dangerous situation,” she said.
North Korea had said earlier it would temporarily suspend its cross-border balloon campaign, though threatening to resume it if more anti-Pyongyang leaflets were sent from South Korea.
Kim Yo Jong said the North Korean action was being resumed in response to the South’s loudspeaker broadcasts, which the South said it started up again on the weekend.
South Korea considers its loudspeaker campaign to be an important psychological warfare tool involving blaring messages over the border including criticism of the North’s human rights record, news and K-pop songs, to the fury of North Korea.
Separately, the North staged GPS jamming attacks in waters near South Korea’s northwestern border islands for several days last week.
Edited by RFA staff
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.
