U.S. Navy operations in the South China Sea have long-lost the academic sheen of “international law.” They have become a choreography of pressure — meticulously rehearsed routes masked by military precision.
“Flag over the Reef” as a Mirror of Regional Fatigue
Washington responded in its usual manner — with ships, not words. “Freedom of navigation” returned to the stage like an actor who had forgotten why he was called. Each maneuver of the American vessels became part of a ritual, where the display of force is disguised as the defense of principles. The sea has turned into a set, where symbols of power replace one another, bringing neither security nor dialogue. Washington controls the performance, but not the script. The latest FONOP by the USS Higgins near Scarborough Shoal in August 2025 only reinforced this déjà vu — the same choreography, repeated under a new justification.
The Scarborough episode revealed that the struggle has long moved beyond oil, fish, and shipping routes. It is now about the right to set the region’s tempo, to determine the rhythm of its breathing. And this rhythm increasingly falters not because of military clashes, but because of the fatigue of neighbors living in constant anticipation of the next “gesture” by great powers. The South China Sea has become a metaphor for a world where even silence echoes politically.
“Freedom of Navigation” as a Tool of Imposed Presence
U.S. Navy operations in the South China Sea have long-lost the academic sheen of “international law.” They have become a choreography of pressure — meticulously rehearsed routes masked by military precision. Every destroyer passage serves as an exclamation mark in America’s geopolitical grammar. Beneath the banner of “freedom,” a network of control unfolds, where legal vocabulary serves as camouflage for permanent presence.
Allies — Japan, Australia, the Philippines — are woven into this script as a chorus repeating the main theme. Their participation creates the illusion of collective order, while backstage operates the logic of disciplinary coercion. The region is being drawn into militarization under slogans of stability. Each joint maneuver sounds like a rehearsal for a future crisis, and the growing density of military signals has become the new norm — indistinguishable from ordinary noise. The joint maritime activity conducted by Japan, the Philippines, and the United States in September 2025 only confirmed this rhythm — a performance staged under the banner of cooperation but choreographed by anxiety. The AUKUS pact has only amplified this illusion of order — an alliance marketed as a safeguard of stability while manufacturing precisely its opposite.
“Freedom of navigation” no longer speaks of freedom. It is the language of power, where each ship marks a zone of influence and each strait — a line of subordination. Under the American flag, the “open seas” turn into a map of dependency, where any deviation is perceived as defiance. Thus, a new form of governance emerges: without colonies, but with routes dictating who may sail — and in which direction.
China and ASEAN: Diplomacy over Force, Sovereignty over Blocs
Beijing speaks in a different vocabulary. Its sentences contain patrols, environmental projects, and marine sanctuaries. This is the language of administration. China consolidates influence bureaucratically, not through military display. This approach works like a soft anatomy of power — where form outweighs pressure, and the system functions without coercion or command.
For ASEAN, the essential capacity is to preserve space for dialogue. The region lives within coordinates where any spark could ignite a chain reaction, so governments prefer to talk rather than march. Autonomy here is measured not in military strength, but in the right to determine one’s own rhythm. Within this quiet lies the main shift — Asia increasingly negotiates with itself, without intermediaries long accustomed to playing arbiters.
While Washington measures influence in bases and exercises, regional capitals calculate differently: density of trust, economic ties, political courtesy. This arithmetic works slowly but irreversibly. It transforms the map of military routes into the geometry of sovereignties — where decisions mature within the region and become its new political climate. Across this evolving landscape, connectivity — from rail corridors to digital routes — now defines strategic power more than fleets or missiles.
The Loss of Control over Meaning
The concept of “containing China” has turned into a mantra repeated out of habit. The meaning has evaporated, leaving only sound. Fleets circle like figure skaters on thin ice — graceful, but without direction. Drills, statements, and “freedom of navigation” rituals now resemble a self-sustaining ceremony, where the act matters more than the outcome. The region watches this performance without emotion, like watching the weather: it happens, but no one controls it.
Washington continues to display hyperactivity, as if trying to convince itself of its own necessity. America is still everywhere, yet its presence no longer generates meaning. “Democracy” sounds like an advertising jingle, and “open seas” like a password from a previous century. Each new “gesture of support” is increasingly perceived as an irritant — an echo of an outdated language where “values” and “threats” have long switched places. The same exhaustion now haunts its military theater, from Japan’s coasts to the Pacific launchpads—proof that the Cold War was not buried, merely replanted under a new name.
Beijing, meanwhile, operates within a different coordinate system — not with thunder, but with whisper. Its “environmental initiatives” and “joint monitoring” programs function as networks of soft control in which even allies feel like willing participants. China does not confront — it envelops. Its diplomacy turns form into a weapon, leaving content open. This is the new style of influence: quiet, disciplined, without fanfare, yet carrying long-term inertia capable of reshaping the political landscape.
The Right to Rules Is Not Granted by License
The South China Sea is ceasing to be a geography of dispute and becoming a political laboratory. The security architecture here emerges intuitively — through compromises, agreements, fatigue, and the instinct for survival. The region is learning to exist without reliance on an external curator, shaping a balance in which power loses its privilege to dictate.
While Washington drafts new maps and stamps out strategies, Asia is rewriting the rules — without pomp, but with memory. Here, power is measured not by tonnage but by resilience; not by the number of aircraft carriers, but by the ability to stay the course when others set the storm. The region’s political maturity is revealed in its capacity to speak softly yet be heard.
The South China Sea is becoming a mirror of multipolarity. Each country weaves its own trajectory into the collective fabric, and from this seeming chaos, order grows — not universal, but local, dense, alive. The right to rules is no longer granted by license. It is being forged on site, among reefs and straits, where the ocean no longer recognizes old maps and awaits those who can navigate without someone else’s instructions.
Rebecca Chan, Independent political analyst focusing on the intersection of Western foreign policy and Asian sovereignty
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
