Beijings

China’s plan to build a nature reserve in the Scarborough Shoal brings strong responses from the Philippines and US.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has expressed support for Manila’s opposition to Beijing’s plan to designate the contested Scarborough Shoal as a “nature reserve”, characterising the move as part of a broader Chinese strategy of coercion in the South China Sea.

“The US stands with our Philippine ally in rejecting China’s destabilising plans to establish a ‘national nature reserve’ at Scarborough Reef,” Rubio wrote on the X social media platform on Friday.

“This is yet another coercive attempt to advance China’s interests at the expense of its neighbours and regional stability,” Rubio said.

“… Claiming Scarborough Reef as a nature preserve is another example of Beijing using pressure tactics to push expansive maritime and territorial claims, disregarding the rights of neighbouring countries,” he added in a statement.

On Wednesday, China’s State Council revealed its intention to establish a nature reserve spanning 3,500 hectares (8,650 acres) on the disputed islet, describing the initiative as an “important guarantee for maintaining … diversity, stability and sustainability”.

While Scarborough Shoal lies 240km (150 miles) west of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and is included in the country’s exclusive economic zone, it has been under Beijing’s control since 2012.

China’s nature reserve plans drew a string of strong responses from the Philippines, where the Department of Foreign Affairs promised on Thursday to lodge a “formal diplomatic protest against this illegitimate and unlawful action”.

According to the Philippine Star news outlet, Philippine National Security Adviser Eduardo Ano said China’s planned “Huangyan Island National Nature Reserve” is “patently illegal”.

Ano cited violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 2016 arbitral ruling in favour of Manila regarding China’s claims in the sea, and the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

“This move by the People’s Republic of China is less about protecting the environment and more about justifying its control over a maritime feature that is part of the territory of the Philippines and its waters lie within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines,” Ano was quoted in the newspaper.

“It is a clear pretext towards eventual occupation,” he said.

Leading Filipino business newspaper BusinessWorld included excerpts from analysts who said Beijing is likely testing Manila’s resolve in asserting its claim over the region.

“China will likely want to see what the response will be from the Philippines,” said Julio S. Amador III, chief executive officer at Manila-based geopolitical risk firm Amador Research Services.

“If it sees that there is no effective pushback, then there is a strong possibility that it will try to do the same over other features,” Amador said.

Last month, the Philippines, Australia and Canada held joint naval drills east of Scarborough Shoal to simulate aerial attacks and how to counter such threats.

China, for its part, has insisted it will defend the area.

China asserts sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea – a strategic maritime corridor through which more than $3 trillion in trade passes each year – despite competing territorial claims from the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

Background

China will hold a large-scale “Victory Day” parade on September 3rd, an annual parade marking Japan’s surrender in 1945 and the end of World War 2. The parade is concurrent with a broader rivalry between China and the West, with Beijing strengthening its ties to nations under heavy Western sanctions. Analysts describe the alignment as an “Axis of Upheaval”, a loose coalition of states discouraged by the long-standing Western world order.

What Happened?

Chinese President Xi Jinping will host Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and Myanmar junta chief Min Aung Mlaing in Beijing on September 3rd.

It will mark the first joint public appearance of Xi, Putin, and Kim.

In total, 26 foreign leaders will attend, essentially no Western heads of state will be in attendance. The only exceptions being; Slovakia’s Robert Fico and Serbia’s Aleksander Vucic, both of whom have maintained alignment with the Beijing/Moscow sphere of influence.

Tens of thousands of Chinese troops will march in the parade, doubling as an international show of strength in addition to celebration of a historical occasion.

Why it Matters:

The parade highlights China’s role as a diplomatic hub for sanctioned and otherwise isolated leaders, further enforcing Beijing’s willingness to spearhead an alternative power bloc to the West. By unifying Putin, Kim and others, Xi emphasizes global leadership stature while reinforcing alliances that bypass Western sanctions. The gathering also underscores the immense economic leverage of China, from buying 90% of Iran’s oil exports to sourcing strategic rare earth minerals from Myanmar.

Stakeholder Reactions:

Analysts: Note that the “Axis of Upheaval” provides critical, mutual lifelines to resist sanctions, whether by supplying energy, blocking trade routes, or reinforcing each other diplomatically.

Western observers: Concerned that the absence of major Western leaders contrasts sharply with the presence of sanctioned figures, signaling a deepening divide in global alignments.

Alfred Wu, NUS Singapore: Asserts that XI is projecting strength, showing that leaders he once admired now stand beside him, and in some senses now look to him, symbolizing his rise as a global leader.

What’s Next?

The parade is likely to amplify rhetoric about resisting Western dominance and provide new opportunities for side meetings between sanctioned leaders. As China balances this coalition with its own global economic interests, that still undoubtedly relies on some level of cooperation with the West despite growing tensions. Said growing tensions stemming over energy security, Taiwan and sanctions enforcement are likely to intensify over the years. The event will serve as a visual reminder of shifting alliances and who stands on each side of the contemporary multipolar world order.

With information from Reuters

BEIJING — Humanoid robots hip-hop danced, performed martial arts and played keyboard, guitar and drums at the opening ceremony of the first World Humanoid Robot Games in Beijing on Thursday evening.

The competition begins Friday with more than 500 humanoid robots in 280 teams from 16 countries, including the U.S., Germany and Japan, competing in sports including soccer, running and boxing. It comes as China has stepped up efforts to develop humanoid robots powered by artificial intelligence.

During the opening ceremony, the robots demonstrated soccer and boxing among other sports, with some cheering and backflipping as if at a real sports day.

One robot soccer player scored a goal after a few tries, causing the goalkeeper to fall to the ground. Another player fell but stood up unassisted.

The robots also modeled fashionable hats and clothes alongside human models. One robot model sadly fell and had to be carried off the stage by two human beings.

Teams from robot companies and Chinese universities including Tsinghua University and Peking University are competing in the games. Three middle schools are also participating.

China’s official newspaper People’s Daily quoted a government officer in Beijing as saying “every robot participates is creating history.”

The event will last three days, concluding on Sunday. Tickets sold to the public range from 180 yuan ($25) to 580 ($80).

Ting writes for the Associated Press. Olivia Zhang contributed to this report from Beijing.

Singapore – Of the many military officials darting across the lobby of Singapore’s Shangri-La Hotel this weekend, there has been one significant absence.

China’s Defence Minister Dong Jun skipped the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier security forum, with Beijing sending a delegation of lower-ranking representatives instead.

It was the first time since 2019 that China has not dispatched its defence minister to the high-level dialogue on regional defence, except when the event was cancelled in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beijing’s decision raised eyebrows in Singapore, coming at a time of heightened tensions between China and the United States – the world’s two biggest superpowers.

Dong’s absence meant there was no face-to-face meeting with his US counterpart, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who had the floor to himself on Saturday when he told the defence forum that the military threat posed by China was potentially imminent.

“It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific,” Hegseth told delegates in Singapore.

Pointing to China’s regular military drills around Taiwan as well as increasingly frequent skirmishes in the South China Sea, Hegseth said Beijing was proactively harassing its neighbours.

“There’s no reason to sugar-coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,” Hegseth said.

He also pointed to China’s growing military assertiveness as a reason for Asian nations to boost their defence spending, pointing to Germany, which has pledged to move towards spending 5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defence.

“It doesn’t make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defence in the face of an even more formidable threat,” Hegseth said.

The defence chief also looked to reassure Asian allies that Washington was committed to Asia Pacific security despite strained ties in recent months as US President Donald Trump targeted some close allies with hefty trade tariffs.

“America is proud to be back in the Indo-Pacific, and we’re here to stay,” he said, opening his speech.

Some analysts were quick to play down the severity of Hegseth’s warnings about China.

“Short of a very few countries, not many in this part of the world see China as an imminent threat and would up their [defence] spending,” said Dylan Loh, assistant professor in the public policy and global affairs programme at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

China tight-lipped on defence chief’s absence

In previous years, the Shangri-La Dialogue had provided a rare platform for meetings between Chinese and US officials in the more informal surroundings that the summit could offer.

The structure of the schedule also allowed Beijing’s military chiefs to directly respond to the keynote speech from the US defence secretary and to present their narrative to other members of the Asia Pacific.

Beijing has remained tight-lipped on the reason for Defence Minister Dong’s absence from the forum, fuelling an information void that has been filled by speculation.

One theory is that China did not want to send a high-profile delegate to the event at such a sensitive time as Beijing navigates the tariff war with the Trump administration.

“Any sort of faux pas or comments that may go off script can be picked up and picked apart or misconstrued,” said Loh, of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

“So the question is why take the risk when US-China relations are at a very delicate point at this moment,” Loh told Al Jazeera.

The Shangri-La Dialogue weekend has not always been the easiest occasion for Chinese defence ministers. In recent years, they have faced difficult questions from their counterparts in other countries, who are unhappy with Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the Asia Pacific region.

Loh said this could be another factor in Dong’s absence from the high-profile event.

“Any Chinese defence minister coming to Singapore now will be exposing himself and the country to political risk,” he said. “Themes like the South China Sea and possibly Taiwan will emerge, which makes China a convenient target,” Loh added.

Dong was appointed as China’s defence minister in late 2023, after his predecessor, Li Shangfu, was removed from office.

Less than a year into the job, there was speculation surrounding Dong’s new position following media reports that he was under investigation as part of a wider investigation into corruption in the Chinese military. Beijing denied the reports, with the minister continuing to maintain a public profile despite the allegations.

There has also been intense scrutiny of China’s military, following reports of an apparent purge of top-level officials by President Xi Jinping.

One of Beijing’s most senior generals, He Weidong, was missing from a high-profile political meeting in April, adding to rumours surrounding a possible restructuring in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Ian Chong, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie China research centre, said such speculation could be a factor in Dong’s no-show in Singapore.

“Because of the domestic turmoil with China’s senior military, they perhaps don’t want to, or the PLA itself feels that it’s not in a position to send somebody senior,” Chong told Al Jazeera.

Announcing Dong’s absence at a news conference before the summit, Chinese military spokesperson Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang maintained that communication channels were still open between defence officials in Washington and Beijing.

“China places great importance on US-China military ties, and is open to communication at different levels,” Zhang said.

American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.”