Decades of US-China military escalation in the South China Sea: How autonomous weapons risk accelerating a structural conflict rooted in territorial sovereignty disputes and Cold War legacy tensions
Original framing: “US and China must set rules before autonomous fighters cross paths” — South China Morning Post
The current tensions are not new but are the latest chapter in a long history of territorial disputes in the South China Sea, dating back to the 17th century when the Dutch and Spanish competed for control of the region. The modern framework, however, was largely shaped by the 1947 US-backed *Philippine Islands Territorial Waters Act* and China’s post-1949 territorial claims, which were formalized in the 1950s and 1970s. The 1974 *Paracel Islands War* between China and South Vietnam, followed by the 1988 *Spratly Islands clash*, set the stage for the current militarization, with each side using these incidents to justify expansion. The US entered the fray in the 1990s with 'freedom of navigation' operations, framing them as defensive but which China saw as provocative. The absence of this historical context in mainstream narratives obscures how the current crisis is a continuation of these older conflicts, not a new phenomenon.
The US-China standoff in the South China Sea is not a technical problem of 'rules for autonomous weapons' but a structural crisis rooted in decades of territorial sovereignty disputes, Cold War legacy tensions, and the militarization of contested waters.
Historical precedents like the 1988 Spratly Islands clash and the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration reveal that the current escalation is a continuation of older conflicts, not a new phenomenon, yet mainstream narratives frame it as an isolated incident. The framing obscures how the US and China’s competing narratives of 'freedom of navigation' versus 'sovereignty' are deeply embedded in a geopolitical rivalry that ignores the voices of Southeast Asian nations directly affected—such as the Philippines and Vietnam—whose sovereignty and livelihoods are at stake. Indigenous maritime traditions, from the *pag-asa* fishing communities to the *Lạc Long Quân* mythos, offer alternative frameworks for coexistence that contrast sharply with the militarized power struggles of today. The trickster perspective exposes the absurdity of two superpowers competing over a sea that has been a site of human interaction for millennia, while future modelling warns that autonomous weapons could accelerate unintended conflicts without clear international norms. Solutions must therefore integrate multilateral demilitarization, economic interdependence, and co-governance models that center regional and Indigenous voices, turning contested waters into sites of shared stability rather than escalation.