Five Eyes Alliance has no place in the South China Sea dispute

Editor's note: Li Qiqian, a special commentator for CGTN, is an assistant research fellow at the National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

By issuing a joint statement, 14 countries have been playing up the 10 years of the issuance of the so-called South China Sea Arbitration Award. Among the signatories, all members of the "Five Eyes Alliance" are listed. Yet these countries have neither the standing nor any legitimate reason to interfere in South China Sea affairs, still less to appoint themselves as judges.

First, the Five Eyes Alliance countries, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are neither littoral states of the South China Sea nor countries directly concerned in the relevant disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. None of them is a claimant to territorial sovereignty or maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.

The South China Sea is one of the world's safest sea lanes. China respects the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all countries in accordance with international law. Such freedoms, however, do not give any country the right to interfere in questions concerning sovereignty over islands and reefs, pass judgment on disputes over maritime rights and interests, or dictate how countries directly concerned should settle their differences.

The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) makes clear that territorial and jurisdictional disputes should be resolved peacefully through friendly consultations and negotiations among sovereign states directly concerned. The Five Eyes Alliance's attempt to exert collective pressure by invoking the "award" therefore lacks both reason and legitimacy. The US has yet to become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but has long interpreted and applied the convention selectively. This further weakens the basis of its position.

Second, the Five Eyes Alliance's collective intervention is aggravating securitization and bloc confrontation in the region. The alliance is an intelligence-sharing alliance underpinned by close security cooperation. An official report of the British Parliament states that its cooperation extends to all forms of intelligence collection and assessment, as well as formal intelligence sharing, joint operational work and joint capability development.

The alliance's coordinated intervention in the South China Sea dispute effectively turns the internal coordination of an exclusive intelligence and security grouping into collective diplomatic pressure. By aligning their narratives on China and drawing in selected allies and partners, they seek to amplify their voice and portray the policy preferences of a small group of countries as the so-called consensus of the international community.

Their purported legal support does not exist in isolation. It works in tandem with military deployments, alliance coordination and regional deterrence. In 2025, for example, the US said it was conducting regular maritime activities in the South China Sea with Australia, Japan and the Philippines. This shows that playing up the "award" serves to further securitize, group, and divide the South China Sea dispute, providing a pretext for external forces to expand their military presence, reinforce alliance commitments and contain China.

Finally, external interference cannot change the fact that the "South China Sea Arbitration Award" is illegal, null and void, and has no binding force.

As the Chinese Foreign Ministry has stated, China has sovereignty over Nanhai Zhudao, known in English as the South China Sea islands, and enjoys relevant maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. These sovereignty, rights and interests have been established in the long course of history and continuously upheld by China, and have a solid historical and legal basis.

The arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction over territorial sovereignty. A piece of paper issued by such a tribunal cannot alter China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. The joint statement by the 14 countries cannot remedy the tribunal's fundamental defects concerning jurisdiction and state consent, nor can a political declaration create new international legal obligations for China.

China and countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations signed the DOC in 2002. In May 2026, China and ASEAN countries held the 26th ASEAN-China Senior Officials' Meeting on the Implementation of the DOC in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The participants stressed the need to strengthen dialogue and consultation, exercise self-restraint and properly manage differences. This demonstrates that regional countries are willing and able to handle the South China Sea dispute through established regional mechanisms.

The South China Sea is neither a political stage for the Five Eyes Alliance to demonstrate internal solidarity nor a frontier for external forces to encircle China. Regional countries should ultimately handle the South China Sea dispute.

The Five Eyes Alliance countries should abandon a cold-war mentality and bloc politics, and stop using the illegal and invalid "award" to create confrontation, disrupt and exert military pressure from across the ocean, thereby obstructing China and ASEAN countries from managing differences through negotiation and consultation.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)