Illustration: Liu Xidan/GT

Recent tensions in the South China Sea stem primarily from a pattern of deliberate provocations and misinformation campaigns orchestrated by the Philippines. Its latest actions near Xianbin Jiao - encouraging unauthorized intrusions, fabricating narratives of victimhood and actively courting external military interference - represent a dangerous departure from the path of dialogue and regional consensus. 

Manila's strategy of sensationalizing maritime encounters while ignoring the historical context and China's indisputable sovereignty over the islands and adjacent waters is the principal driver of current instability. It must be emphasized that whether an act constitutes provocation is never determined by the type of equipment used, but by who is undertaking what actions in which location. The "fishermen" dispatched by the Philippines to intrude into the uninhabited reefs of China's Nansha Islands are engaged in a clear violation of China's sovereignty. Even if they were armed with nothing more than a needle, the act of intrusion itself constitutes a provocation against China's territorial integrity.

The Philippine narrative, amplified through its coast guard, defense officials and major media outlets, centers on incidents allegedly occurring within its claimed Exclusive Economic Zone. Reports detail encounters involving Chinese vessels and Philippine fishing boats, employing emotive language and releasing selected visual materials. This approach is characterized by several distinct features designed to sway both domestic and international opinion.

First, it heavily leans on a selective legal framework, predominantly citing the 2016 arbitral award - which China did not participate in and consistently rejects as legally flawed - alongside the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, while conspicuously ignoring the complex historical context and China's long-standing rights and interests in the South China Sea. This creates a one-sided "rule-of-law" facade, positioning itself as the sole defender of international law. Moreover, the Philippines habitually misuses the concept of proximity to justify its unlawful claims, which holds no standing in international law regarding territorial acquisition. 

Second, a strategy of "evidence-driven" emotional mobilization is evident. Through coordinated social media campaigns and press releases, a high volume of videos, photos and patrol data is disseminated. While packaged as "transparency," this tactic primarily serves to amplify a victimhood narrative, stoke nationalist sentiment domestically and frame maritime law enforcement activities - common practices for any coastal state to maintain order - as acts of "bullying."

Third, and perhaps most consequentially, is the active internationalization of the issue. Philippine reports consistently reference statements of support from external powers, notably the US, implicitly seeking to transform bilateral maritime differences into a geopolitical flashpoint. This aligns with Manila's broader strategic shift toward bolstering military alliances, which introduces unpredictable external variables into the regional equation.

Behind this concerted effort lie clear strategic intentions. Domestically, these incidents serve multiple purposes for the Philippine leadership. Amid economic challenges and political scandals, rallying around national sovereignty diverts attention from internal woes. Fishermen's stories of hardship evoke empathy, bolstering public support for a hardline stance. However, this strategy risks long-term isolation if it alienates neighbors committed to peaceful development. When the Philippine government refrains from provocations, genuine Filipino fishermen are able to conduct normal fishing operations peacefully at sea. By repeatedly staging intrusions and orchestrating media spectacles for political purposes, is the Marcos administration truly helping its fishermen, or is it ultimately harming their livelihoods and safety? The ASEAN bloc has historically advocated for neutrality and consensus, and with the Philippines assuming the chairmanship, there's an opportunity to pivot toward constructive engagement rather than confrontation.

The Philippine approach is a calculated attempt to reframe its own unlawful activities as a defense against "coercion." By dispatching official vessels to escort unauthorized entries into Chinese waters and orchestrating media spectacles, Manila seeks to create pretexts for further external involvement. Its heavy reliance on a legally flawed arbitral award and selective interpretation of international law cannot legitimize its encroachments on China's maritime rights and jurisdiction.

China's responses have been consistently lawful, measured and defensive in nature. The China Coast Guard's operations are necessary to maintain order, uphold sovereignty and counteract persistent infringements. China remains the staunchest advocate for peace and stability in these waters. The future of the South China Sea must be determined by countries within the region through dialogue and cooperation, not by external forces or through Manila's destabilizing theatrics.

It is imperative for the Philippines to cease its provocative actions, stop misleading the international community and return to the right track of properly managing differences through bilateral consultation. The door to dialogue remains open, but peace cannot be sustained if one party continuously violates the basic norms of international relations and regional cooperation. Stability will prevail only when all parties, especially Manila, choose sincerity over deception and diplomacy over confrontation.

The author is the director of the Research Center for International and Regional Studies at China's National Institute for South China Sea Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn