China, Japan, Philippines, a Triangle Reopening Old Wounds

Introduction: when geopolitics reopens old scars

A month of mounting tensions

The South China Sea has never really known calm, but the summer of 2026 is shaping up to be especially heavy. A new analysis details how Beijing's increasingly assertive posture in the region, combined with an accelerated rapprochement between Japan and the Philippines, has revived historical tensions many believed had been settled for decades.

It's no coincidence that these three countries find themselves at the center of the same explosive file. Each carries a particular historical weight: Tokyo and Manila share the memory of the Japanese occupation during World War II, while China today claims a regional hegemony that deliberately ignores this complex past.

A strategic triangle under Chinese pressure

China has publicly criticized the trilateral security cooperation between the Philippines, Japan, and the United States, calling it a destabilizing provocation for the region. Far from easing tensions, this criticism seems instead to be accelerating the rapprochement between Manila and Tokyo, two countries that see mutual solidarity as their best protection against Chinese expansionism.

This commentary explores how this triangle of tensions re-formed, what it reveals about Chinese ambitions, and why the West can no longer afford to treat the South China Sea as a secondary file.

Exclusive economic zones, the new diplomatic battlefield

An overlap that complicates everything

The expanded discussions between Tokyo and Manila notably focus on better coordinating their respective exclusive economic zones, a move Beijing views as an attempted legal encirclement in a region where it claims near-total sovereignty based on its infamous nine-dash line.

This line, rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2016, nonetheless continues to shape Chinese maritime doctrine, in open contradiction with the international law of the sea that most countries in the region recognize and apply.

Cooperation that bothers Beijing more than it admits

The mere fact that Beijing reacts so strongly to these maritime coordination talks speaks volumes about the potential effectiveness of this strengthened cooperation. A China confident in the legitimacy of its claims wouldn't need to so loudly denounce a bilateral dialogue between two sovereign countries.

This disproportionate reaction suggests Beijing specifically fears this kind of united regional front, capable of effectively challenging, on diplomatic and legal ground, Chinese maritime expansionism in the area.

The weight of history, between Tokyo and Manila

An occupation that left deep scars

The Japanese occupation of the Philippines during World War II remains, even today, a painful memory for many Filipino families, marked by documented atrocities and decades of historical resentment that long complicated bilateral relations between the two countries.

This past hasn't magically disappeared, but it has been gradually eased by decades of diplomatic rebuilding, official Japanese apologies, and growing economic cooperation between Tokyo and Manila since the end of the twentieth century.

The Chinese threat as a catalyst for reconciliation

Paradoxically, it is the rise of the shared Chinese threat that is now accelerating what had remained a slow, uneven reconciliation process. Facing an adversary perceived as existential, the two countries have chosen to move past their historical disputes to build an increasingly close, pragmatic security alliance.

This dynamic illustrates a classic geopolitical reality: major external threats often have the power to reconcile nations that history had long set against each other, a phenomenon observed in several regions of the world facing a common adversary.

China's strategy of territorial encroachment

A method proven over years

China has for years applied a methodical strategy of territorial encroachment in the South China Sea, combining regular patrols, construction of militarized artificial islands, and economic pressure on neighboring countries that dispute its excessive maritime claims.

This gradual approach, often called a gray zone tactic by Western military analysts, allows Beijing to advance its pawns without ever crossing the threshold that would trigger a direct military response from the United States or its regional allies.

A permanent test of Western limits

Every new Chinese advance in the region constitutes, de facto, a test of the limits of Western tolerance for this kind of creeping expansionism. The lack of a firm, coordinated response so far has likely encouraged Beijing to continue, even intensify, this gradual strategy.

Without a more robust and systematic response from the Western and regional coalition, it is reasonable to fear this encroachment strategy will keep producing results favorable to Beijing in the years ahead.

The ambiguous role of the United States under Trump

A seemingly firm posture

The Trump administration has, on the surface, maintained a firm posture toward China in the South China Sea, regularly reaffirming American commitment to its regional allies, notably the Philippines and Japan, under their respective mutual defense treaties.

This rhetorical firmness, however, comes alongside an at times unpredictable American trade policy, including toward its own Asian allies, creating a form of strategic uncertainty that Beijing could seek to exploit to its advantage.

A necessary ally despite its contradictions

Despite these internal contradictions in American foreign policy, Trump remains an indispensable partner for containing Chinese ambitions in the region, if only because of the considerable military and economic weight the United States continues to project in the Indo-Pacific.

It is precisely this duality, between necessary firmness and worrying unpredictability, that defines the current American role: a necessary evil for the West, as for the entire regional coalition against China.

The hidden economic stakes behind the geopolitics

Considerable energy resources at play

Beyond strictly strategic considerations, the South China Sea holds considerable potential reserves of oil and natural gas, as well as shipping lanes used by a significant share of global trade every year.

These colossal economic stakes largely explain why none of the countries involved, including China itself, seem willing to make significant concessions on their territorial claims in the region.

A fishing economy also under threat

For local Filipino and Japanese populations, the stakes go far beyond grand geostrategic considerations: it's directly about the economic survival of fishing communities that have depended on these waters for generations, and who now find themselves caught between powers far larger than themselves.

This human and local economic dimension deserves to be constantly emphasized in a debate often dominated by abstract geopolitical considerations, disconnected from the real daily life of the populations directly affected.

Western solidarity put to the test

A test of consistency for the West

The crisis in the South China Sea is a test of consistency for the entire West: can it claim to defend international law in Ukraine while overlooking its systematic violation by China in the Pacific? This potential inconsistency undermines the overall credibility of Western rhetoric on the rules-based international order.

A credible Western response requires overall strategic consistency, applying the same principles of defending international law, whether the aggressor is Russia in Eastern Europe or China in the Asia-Pacific.

European allies still too quiet

While the United States, Japan, and Australia maintain an active presence in the region, European countries remain largely on the sidelines of this file, preferring to focus their diplomatic and military resources on the Ukrainian theater, which is nonetheless just as crucial to global balance.

This relative European reticence weakens the symbolic reach and practical impact of any coordinated Western response to Chinese ambitions, at a moment when a show of transatlantic and transpacific unity would be especially welcome.

The consequences for Taiwan, the debate's blind spot

A precedent watched very closely

Every development in the South China Sea situation is closely scrutinized by Taiwan, which sees it as a valuable indicator of Western resolve to contain Chinese expansionism before it directly extends to the Taiwan Strait.

If Beijing manages to durably impose its disputed maritime claims without significant consequence, this precedent will directly feed Chinese confidence in a potential larger-scale operation against the island, a scenario the West has dreaded for years.

A strategic link too often overlooked

Too many analyses treat the Taiwan question and the South China Sea question as separate files, when they fit into the same overall strategic logic on Beijing's part, aimed at establishing an uncontested regional hegemony across the entire Indo-Pacific.

Understanding this strategic continuity is essential to crafting a coherent Western response, one that doesn't treat each regional file in isolation but within an overall vision toward China.

The available diplomatic tools, underused

International law, a still too timid weapon

Despite the existence of a clear ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in favor of the Philippines since 2016, the West has never fully leveraged this legal instrument to diplomatically isolate China on the international stage over its excessive maritime claims.

More systematic use of this ruling, through international bodies and multilateral forums, could significantly strengthen the diplomatic position of neighboring countries against Chinese ambitions in the region.

Economic sanctions, an option still off the table

Unlike the Western response to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, no significant Western coalition has seriously considered targeted economic sanctions against China in response to its repeated violations of international maritime law in the region.

This difference in treatment, while understandable given China's global economic weight, nonetheless deserves to be questioned if the West genuinely wants to apply a consistent doctrine of defending international law everywhere in the world.

The military dimension, a still-uncertain balance

An impressive Chinese naval modernization

The Chinese navy has undergone, over the past decade, an impressive modernization that now allows it to project considerable naval power well beyond its immediate coastline, fundamentally changing the regional military balance in the South China Sea.

This rise in Chinese naval power significantly complicates the strategic calculations of neighboring countries, which must now contend with a naval force increasingly capable of projecting power across the entire disputed region.

Regional allies bolster their own capabilities

Facing this shift, the Philippines and Japan are gradually investing in strengthening their own naval and air capabilities, often with direct US support, in a regional arms race showing no sign of slowing down in the short term.

This dynamic of mutual armament, while potentially stabilizing through the deterrence it generates, also carries risks of accidental escalation that deserve constant attention from all actors involved in the region.

The role of public opinion in the three countries

Filipino opinion increasingly mobilized

Filipino public opinion increasingly supports a firm stance against China, a sentiment fueled by constant media coverage of maritime incidents and by the growing perception of a direct threat to the country's national sovereignty.

This popular mobilization strengthens the Philippine government's position in its international negotiations, while limiting its room for maneuver on any potential diplomatic concessions to Beijing.

Japan, between historic pacifism and security realism

In Japan, the South China Sea question revives a long-standing debate between the historic attachment to postwar constitutional pacifism and the need, perceived by a growing share of the population, to strengthen national defense capabilities against growing regional threats.

This internal Japanese debate directly influences the pace and scope of the security cooperation Tokyo is willing to develop with Manila and Washington in the years ahead.

Escalation scenarios to watch

A maritime incident that spirals out of control

The scenario most feared by analysts remains an isolated maritime incident that quickly spirals into direct military confrontation, whether by accident, by miscalculation, or by a deliberate decision from one of the parties involved to test the limits of the other side's deterrence.

This kind of scenario, while statistically unlikely in the short term, can never be fully ruled out in a region where tensions remain constantly high and where communication lines between the different parties often remain insufficient.

Chinese economic pressure as an alternative

Rather than direct military confrontation, China could favor gradual economic pressure on the Philippines, exploiting the close trade ties between the two countries to extract concessions without ever openly resorting to military force.

This more subtle but potentially just as effective approach represents a different challenge for the West, which must then economically support its regional allies to offset any coercive Chinese trade pressure.

What history teaches us about these regional rivalries

Illuminating historical precedents

Asia-Pacific history is full of precedents where seemingly minor territorial rivalries ended up triggering major conflicts, often because the powers involved underestimated their adversaries' resolve or overestimated their own strategic room for maneuver.

These historical lessons should push all actors involved in the current South China Sea crisis toward the greatest caution, without giving up the firmness necessary against Chinese ambitions in the region.

Avoiding past mistakes, a shared responsibility

Avoiding a repeat of these historical mistakes requires active, sustained diplomacy, combined with credible military deterrence, a delicate balance the West and its regional allies must maintain with constant strategic discipline.

This responsibility falls as much on major Western powers as on countries directly bordering the South China Sea, all of whom share an interest in avoiding an uncontrolled escalation with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire region.

The Korean factor and regional democratic solidarity

Seoul, a quiet but essential partner

South Korea, facing its own North Korean threat, watches the rapprochement between Tokyo and Manila with interest, aware that the stability of the entire Indo-Pacific region rests on a network of democratic alliances capable of collectively resisting both China and North Korea.

This regional democratic solidarity, still fragmentary, would benefit from formally expanding to include Seoul, whose military and technological capabilities represent a considerable asset for any future regional coalition against combined authoritarian threats.

A still-incomplete security architecture

The absence of a fully integrated regional security architecture, comparable to NATO in Europe, remains a structural weakness for all Indo-Pacific democracies facing increasingly coordinated authoritarian adversaries, including China, Russia, and North Korea.

Closing this structural gap should be a major diplomatic priority for all democracies in the region, with the active support of the United States and its European partners in the years ahead.

Conclusion: a triangle that will define the region's future

A pivotal moment for the Indo-Pacific

The triangle formed by China, Japan, and the Philippines perfectly illustrates the complex dynamics that will define the strategic future of the entire Indo-Pacific region for decades to come, between historical reconciliation forced by necessity and growing geopolitical confrontation against a shared adversary.

This file, still too often relegated to the background in Western media attention, deserves constant vigilance, because the decisions made today in this region will directly shape tomorrow's global balance.

The West facing its global responsibilities

For the West, this file is a direct test of its ability to consistently and comprehensively defend the rules-based international order, whether it's Ukraine against Russia, or the Philippines and Japan against China.

A response worthy of these stakes requires stronger transatlantic and transpacific coordination, without which China will keep methodically advancing its pawns in a region on which a considerable share of global economic and security stability depends.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My acknowledged biases

I write from a clearly pro-Western position, considering China the greatest long-term strategic threat to the international order, on par with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This conviction structures my analysis of any file involving Beijing.

What I don't yet know

I cannot predict with certainty whether this rapprochement dynamic between Japan and the Philippines will translate into a formal, lasting security alliance, nor how China will concretely react in the coming months to this rapprochement. These uncertainties deserve to be tracked rigorously rather than resolved through hasty assumptions.

Sources

Primary sources

Asia Times — China's latest South China Sea moves reopen old wounds with Japan and Philippines, June 2026

Associated Press — Philippines, Beijing tensions in South China Sea, 2026

Institute for the Study of War — China-Taiwan Update, June 26, 2026

Secondary sources

Reuters — China conducts patrols around disputed Scarborough Shoal, June 30, 2026

South China Morning Post — China and Philippines have rare naval stand near disputed Scarborough Shoal, 2026

Council on Foreign Relations — Territorial disputes in the South China Sea, 2026