Summary
On July 12, 2026, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement opposing a joint statement from 14 countries, including the US, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Romania, Slovenia, and the UK, which marked the 10th anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration award. The statement reaffirmed China's sovereignty and historic rights over the South China Sea islands, said the arbitration case violated international law, and described the so-called 'award' as an illegal, invalid, and non-binding document that China neither accepts nor recognises. It emphasised that freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea is not a problem, and that militarisation by external countries is the main challenge.
The statement warned that if the arbitration standard were applied, many countries' islands and reefs would lose maritime entitlements, and urged relevant countries to stop creating trouble.
Commentary
The South China Sea carries a third of global maritime trade, making it critical for a trade-dependent economy like New Zealand. The joint statement could heighten regional tensions, pushing up shipping insurance and rerouting costs, directly squeezing profits of small and medium exporters. However, since the upgrade of the NZ-China FTA, tariff advantages for dairy, meat and other products remain, and China's position as New Zealand's largest trading partner has not changed.
Small and medium enterprises need to be alert to geopolitical risk transmission, but overreaction is unnecessary – freedom of navigation in the South China Sea has not been materially hindered in the past decade, and pragmatic business exchanges remain the norm.
Keywords: South China Sea arbitration, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, statement, sovereignty, joint statement, illegal award, United States, not accept or recognise, Philippines
Source: Embassy of the People's Republic of China in New Zealand – Bilateral Relations
Disclaimer: This article is compiled from publicly available sources for general information only. The analysis and commentary are editorial opinions. MiDeer Observer does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. Readers should seek independent professional advice before relying on this content, or contact us for more information.
