The South China Sea is a strategic and resource-rich body of water that is known by various names, reflecting the region’s multifaceted historical, cultural, and geopolitical connections. The English term, which is most commonly used to refer to the waterway, came about due to the European interests in these seas as a trading route from Europe to Asia and China. To the Chinese, it is often referred to as “Nanhai” (南海), emphasizing its geographic position south of the Chinese mainland. For the Vietnamese, the sea is “Biển Đông” (Eastern Sea), signifying its location relative to Vietnam’s landmass. In recent times, the Philippines has referred to parts of the sea as the “West Philippine Sea,” asserting its sovereignty over parts of this contested area.
These differing names, which also extend down to the hundreds of islands, reefs, and other features in the South China Sea, are not just semantic; they each advance a nationalist narrative and a historical claim. The nomenclature also reflects the geopolitical stakes in the South China Sea, where overlapping maritime and territorial claims have led to rising tensions among nations. Each name carries with its stories of identity, cultural memory, and national pride. The Chinese perspective, rooted in centuries of history, frames the sea as an integral part of its territorial and seaborne influence. Vietnam’s designation highlights its own maritime and historical connections, including its past legacy of colonization by France and China, that shapes its modern identity. The Philippines’ choice of “West Philippine Sea” is a contemporary assertion of sovereignty, made in the face of increasing Chinese maritime assertiveness. These layers of meaning illustrate the struggle for recognition and legitimacy in a region with various competing interests.
The diversity of names for the South China Sea invites a broader conversation about the narratives we construct around geographical entities. The very act of naming can shape perceptions, influence diplomacy, and guide policy. As the region grapples with the implications of its names, it becomes crucial to acknowledge how these labels not only reflect existing realities but also actively participate in the ongoing discourse of power and identity. This commentary seeks to explore the historical roots of these names and proposes an alternative that may foster greater regional understanding.
Historical Roots of the Names
The historical context behind the various names used for the South China Sea is deeply intertwined with the history of maritime trade and Western imperialism. The name “South China Sea” reflects a Eurocentric perspective, rooted in the historical maps of Western cartographers who labeled the waters in relation to their strong interest in opening trade with China, then (as now) the dominant economic influence in the region. This nomenclature emerged during the age of colonialism, when European powers exerted influence over the region and sought to chart its waters for trade and strategic advantage. The term, therefore, is not merely geographical but also carries the weight of imperial history, positioning China as a dominant player in the narrative.
The name “Biển Đông,” as used by Vietnam, emerges from a historical framework that emphasizes its own maritime heritage. Vietnam has long been a maritime nation, and its history of seafaring is reflected in the significance of the “Eastern Sea” as a lifeline for trade and cultural exchange. The Vietnamese name evokes a narrative that challenges Chinese assertions of sovereignty and emphasizes Vietnam’s historical claims dating back centuries, including periods of resistance against Chinese dominance. South China Sea was said to be known as the Champa Sea by navigators for centuries, in recognition of the Champa empire which controlled central Vietnam, as well as significant parts of eastern Cambodia and Laos from the 6th to 15th centuries.
In the Philippines, the adoption of “West Philippine Sea” in 2012 is a relatively recent development, shaped significantly by contemporary geopolitical dynamics and China’s growing incursions into its portions of the South China Sea. This rebranding represents a conscious effort by the Philippine government to reclaim its narrative in the face of external challenges. By redefining the name, the Philippines aims to reinforce its sovereignty and assert its interests in the face of increasing competition.
Similarly, in 2017, the Indonesian government released a new official map that renamed part of the South China Sea lying within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as “Laut Natuna Utara” or North Natuna Sea. This initiative came about after repeated incursions by Chinese vessels. This renaming highlights Indonesia’s concern about its rights and sovereignty of EEZ around the Natunas. The historical and recent evolution of names illustrates how geographical labels can shift in response to political realities and national identities.
An Updated Identity for the Sea
Given the contentious nature of the existing nomenclature, it may be beneficial to consider alternative names for the South China Sea that promote regional understanding and collaboration. One potential alternative could be the “Southeast Asian Sea,” a name that collectively recognizes the diverse nations bordering the waters and their shared interests. Such a designation would emphasize cooperation over competition, highlighting the interconnectedness of Southeast Asian nations and their mutual dependence on the sea for trade, fisheries, and environmental resources.
“Southeast Asian Sea” would be an inclusive name that would honor the rich history of maritime trade and cultural exchange, while positioning the sea as a space for cooperation and mutual benefit among countries that are part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and beyond. It would serve as a reminder that the sea has long been a conduit for connection rather than conflict, fostering an identity centered around harmonious collaboration, progress, and prosperity.
Adopting a new name for the sea around Southeast Asia would not be without its challenges, as it requires navigating the entrenched national narratives and sensitivities of the countries involved. However, the potential benefits are significant. A more inclusive name could promote dialogue and reduce tensions, fostering a sense of shared ownership of the sea. It could also serve as a platform for collaborative initiatives addressing critical issues such as climate change, environmental degradation, fishing and mining rights, and maritime safety and security.
Reimagining the name of the South China Sea offers an opportunity to potentially redefine relationships and pursue a more peaceful and cooperative future in a region marked by complexity and interdependence.