Cooperation rather than arms races is a more durable foundation
Along the shores of a sea that has long carried the weight of competing ambitions, scholars and former diplomats gathered in Sanya this June to ask whether dialogue might yet prove stronger than deterrence. Marking thirty-five years of China-ASEAN relations, the 'Tides & Voices' salon convened by China Media Group offered a deliberate counternarrative to headlines dominated by military posturing — one rooted in shared fisheries, blue economies, and the quiet logic of mutual benefit. The gathering reflects a recurring tension in the human story of contested spaces: whether the communities who live beside them can shape their governance before distant powers do it for them.
- The South China Sea remains one of the world's most volatile intersections of sovereignty, resources, and great-power rivalry, and the risk of miscalculation grows with every naval patrol and territorial assertion.
- External powers framing the region as a zero-sum contest threaten to crowd out the slower, harder work of building institutions that actually serve coastal populations.
- Experts at the salon pushed back with evidence: eco-fisheries programs, port logistics networks, and maritime rescue operations that put tangible benefits into the hands of fishermen and port workers across the region.
- Scholars called for a structural shift — away from military-first security thinking and toward common security frameworks built on cooperation, arguing that countries in the region, not distant powers, must be the architects of their own stability.
- People-to-people exchanges — youth programs, study tours, cultural connections — were proposed as the connective tissue that formal agreements alone cannot provide, binding nations through shared experience rather than signed documents.
On a June afternoon in Sanya, a salon called 'Tides & Voices' brought together Chinese scholars and international counterparts to confront a question that has shadowed the region for years: how to keep the South China Sea from becoming a theater of great-power conflict. The timing carried meaning — this year marks thirty-five years since China and ASEAN formalized their dialogue relationship, a milestone that represents something easily lost in coverage of territorial disputes: a sustained, institutional commitment to talking.
Zhou Jian, a former Chinese representative for boundary and ocean affairs, drew the central contrast plainly. Where some external actors treat regional competition as a zero-sum game, China and ASEAN have pursued shared development as a stabilizing force. A short film screened at the event gave that abstraction concrete shape — eco-fisheries, blue economy initiatives, port logistics, search-and-rescue cooperation. These are arrangements that generate livelihoods and save lives along coastlines where ordinary people bear the consequences of how the sea is governed.
Li Kaisheng of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies pressed toward a deeper principle: that regional nations, not outside powers with distant strategic interests, must be the primary architects of their own security. He called for moving beyond military-centered frameworks toward common security built on cooperation — a more durable foundation, he argued, than arms races. Malaysian scholar Peter TC Chang added a human dimension, advocating for youth exchanges and environmental collaboration as the kind of person-to-person bonds that formal agreements cannot replicate.
The salon positioned media and academic voices as active participants in shaping what becomes politically possible — on the premise that how disputes are narrated influences whether dialogue or confrontation defines the path forward. What the gathering ultimately offered was a vision: a South China Sea governed not by dominance, but by institutions, shared stakes, and sustained conversation. Whether that vision can hold against the pressures bearing down on it remains genuinely uncertain.
In Sanya, at the studios of China Media Group, a gathering of scholars and former diplomats convened on a June afternoon to discuss a question that has shadowed the region for years: how to keep the South China Sea from becoming a flashpoint for great-power competition. The "Tides & Voices" salon, held on June 5, brought together Chinese experts and their international counterparts to examine the state of governance in these contested waters and the future of security architecture across Asia.
The timing was deliberate. This year marks thirty-five years since China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations formalized their dialogue relationship, and five years since they completed their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. These milestones matter because they represent something that often gets lost in headlines about military posturing and territorial disputes: a sustained commitment to talking, to finding common ground, to building institutions that benefit ordinary people rather than just military planners.
Zhou Jian, who spent years as China's representative for boundary and ocean affairs, made the case plainly. While some external powers, he argued, treat regional competition as a zero-sum game where one nation's gain is another's loss, China and ASEAN have chosen a different path. They have resolved their differences through shared development—a model that has become, in his view, essential to keeping the South China Sea stable. The contrast he was drawing was unmistakable: confrontation versus cooperation, military buildups versus pragmatic partnership.
The salon screened a short film titled "Shared Waters, Shared Futures," which served as a window into what that cooperation actually looks like on the water. Yang Xiao, a researcher at the Institute of Peaceful Development Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, walked participants through concrete examples: eco-fisheries initiatives, blue economy projects, port logistics networks, maritime search and rescue operations. These are not symbolic gestures. They are working arrangements that put money in fishermen's pockets, create jobs in ports, and save lives when vessels run into trouble. The people living along the South China Sea's coasts benefit directly from these programs.
Li Kaisheng, vice president of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, pushed the conversation toward a deeper principle. Countries in the region, he said, are the true guardians of their own security. This is a subtle but important argument: it suggests that outsiders—distant powers with their own strategic interests—should not be the ones dictating how regional security is organized. Instead, he called for a shift away from the assumption that security comes primarily from military strength. Common security, he proposed, built on cooperation rather than arms races, is a more durable foundation.
Peter TC Chang, a Malaysian scholar, brought a different dimension to the discussion. He spoke about historical ties between China and Malaysia, drawing on a Chinese film called "Dear You" that explores migration patterns and cultural connections. His suggestion was practical: expand youth exchanges, organize study tours, create opportunities for young people from both countries to work together on environmental protection. These person-to-person connections, he argued, strengthen the bonds between nations in ways that formal agreements alone cannot.
The salon itself was framed as an exercise in what its organizers called "leveraging the power of media and think tanks" to build consensus. The idea is that journalists, scholars, and public intellectuals have a role to play in shaping how regional disputes are understood and discussed. If the conversation in newsrooms and academic circles emphasizes dialogue and mutual benefit, that shapes what becomes politically possible. If it emphasizes confrontation and threat, it shapes things differently.
What emerges from this gathering is a particular vision of how the South China Sea might be managed: not through military dominance or great-power diktat, but through institutions that give all parties a stake in stability, through concrete cooperation that benefits ordinary people, and through sustained dialogue that keeps differences from hardening into conflict. Whether that vision can hold against the pressures of geopolitical competition remains an open question.
Notable Quotes
China and ASEAN have consistently resolved differences through shared development, a model that has become crucial to stabilizing the South China Sea.— Zhou Jian, former Representative for Boundary and Ocean Affairs, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Countries within the region are the true custodians of regional security and should establish common security frameworks based on cooperation rather than military buildups.— Li Kaisheng, Vice President of the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a media salon in Sanya matter? Isn't this just diplomats talking?
It matters because the conversation shapes what becomes possible. If scholars and journalists frame the South China Sea as a space for cooperation rather than confrontation, that changes which policies look reasonable to pursue.
But aren't there real territorial disputes here? Can dialogue actually resolve those?
The argument being made is that you don't have to resolve every dispute to build stability. You can cooperate on fisheries, search and rescue, port development—things that benefit everyone—while managing disagreements through negotiation rather than military buildup.
What's the "external forces" argument really about?
It's saying that some distant powers benefit from keeping the region tense and divided. If China and ASEAN stay focused on their own interests and their own dialogue, they're less vulnerable to being pulled into someone else's strategic competition.
Is this realistic, or wishful thinking?
That depends on whether the material incentives for cooperation—the fishing, the trade, the jobs—are strong enough to outweigh the incentives for confrontation. The salon is betting they are.
What would actually change if this vision took hold?
You'd see fewer military exercises, more joint maritime patrols focused on safety rather than sovereignty, investment in shared infrastructure, and young people from the region studying and working together instead of being trained as adversaries.