In videos released by both sides, the coastguard vessel can be seen blocking the path of the resupply ship, which attempted to evade the vessel by crossing its bow and was struck. Separate videos show the second collision. The Qiong Sansha Yu 00003, a professional maritime militia vessel operated by China’s state-owned Sansha Fisheries Development Company, pulled alongside and then collided with a stationary Philippine Coast Guard ship. The incident appeared to involve no serious damage, and a second Philippine resupply vessel managed to reach the Sierra Madre. But these were just the most dangerous interactions in pattern of unsafe conduct that recurs monthly around Second Thomas Shoal.

The situation around Second Thomas highlights a key feature of China’s foreign policy — its refusal to acknowledge that the Philippines or other small states have their own agency in disputes with Beijing. This worldview was aptly summed up in a piece by the nationalist Global Times, which concludes ‘By escalating the tensions, the Philippines likely wants to draw support from the US, or the entire farce was staged by the US in the first place’.

When the Chinese leadership confronts a middle or small power that challenges or offends Beijing, they often accuse the smaller power of working in tandem with the United States or being used by the United States to drive an ‘anti-China’ strategy. This is the same sentiment with which Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi infamously shouted down Singaporean counterpart George Yeo at the 2010 ASEAN Regional Forum. ‘China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact’, he said.

This sentiment is also the reason that Beijing sought to undermine the arbitration brought by the Philippines from 2013 to 2016 by insisting that it was engineered by the United States and Japan. And it is why after every Philippine diplomatic objection over the violence at Second Thomas, Chinese officials ignore the substance of the complaints and lecture their Filipino counterparts about being pawns in a US plot.

When another China Coast Guard vessel nearly collided with a Philippine ship in September 2023, Beijing read from this familiar script. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. aired his frustrations at the annual ASEAN Summit that same week, saying that the Philippines rejected narratives of the South China Sea disputes that revolved around US–China competition. Marcos asserted that ‘this not only denies us our independence and our agency, but it also disregards our own legitimate interests’.

A month later, after the Philippines complained about another violent incident between itself and China, Global Times ran an editorial cartoon showing the Philippines as nothing more than a stick being used by the United States to stir up the South China Sea.

Beijing is not ready to acknowledge that Manila, or any other Southeast Asian claimant, has legitimate grievances that must be addressed to peacefully manage disputes. This increases the risks of escalation as Beijing seems to believe that other states are less committed to their sovereignty and rights, defy China only because of American interference and will eventually buckle in the face of sustained pressure. Running the same coercive play over and over at Second Thomas Shoal seems unlikely to change Philippine policy and so will only lead to further collisions and risk escalation.

There are two driving forces behind this forceful aspect of China’s regional foreign policy — Beijing’s vision of regional hierarchy and fear of US containment. In China’s long-embedded view of regional hierarchy, smaller states are historically and necessarily subservient to Beijing in the Asian pecking order. Long legacies of traditional tributary state relations with China, as well as the historical dominance of Chinese culture, language and economic power in the region, still linger in the minds of Chinese decisionmakers.

Chinese leaders also genuinely see the United States as an architect of a long-term containment strategy that seeks to undermine China’s regional influence or worse, to bring about the collapse of the Communist Party of China. This view, which dates to the years just after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, now colours much of Beijing’s thinking about its external environment. As Chinese President Xi Jinping stated in March, ‘Western countries led by the United States have implemented all-around containment, encirclement and suppression of China, which has brought unprecedented severe challenges to our country’s development’.

Beijing’s unwillingness to treat the concerns and grievances of its regional neighbours as legitimate has now become one of the most prominent challenges to its management of external relations. As US officials admit privately, the Biden administration’s progress in strengthening relations with countries across the region, from Australia to India to the Philippines, is less a story of diplomatic acumen and more one of Chinese truculence. Should Beijing adjust course and begin treating regional actors as partners, not irritants, the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy may face its greatest challenge yet.

Greg Poling is Senior Fellow and Director of the Southeast Asia Program and the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC.

Jude Blanchette holds the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington DC.