Beijing’s Turn To The Sulu Claim Raises Questions Over A New Divide And Influence Strategy In Southeast Asia

China’s recent public references to the Sulu narrative have caught regional observers off guard, prompting speculation over whether Beijing is recalibrating its diplomatic messaging to advance strategic interests in Southeast Asia. While the narrative itself is rooted in historical claims tied to the former Sultanate of Sulu, China’s sudden engagement with the issue has raised concerns about potential attempts to exploit regional sensitivities.

Traditionally, the Sulu issue has been confined to legal and historical debates involving the Philippines and Malaysia, particularly in relation to Sabah. China’s apparent willingness to echo or amplify elements of this narrative represents a notable shift, suggesting a broader geopolitical calculation rather than a genuine historical interest.

Analysts argue that referencing the Sulu narrative could be a subtle way for China to introduce friction among ASEAN members, especially at a time when the bloc has struggled to present a unified front on contentious regional issues such as the South China Sea. By highlighting unresolved historical disputes, external powers may be able to weaken regional cohesion without direct confrontation.

The timing of China’s comments has also drawn attention. With legal setbacks weakening the credibility of Sulu-related claims in international courts, Beijing’s engagement appears less about legal validation and more about political signaling. Observers suggest that the move may serve as leverage in broader diplomatic negotiations, particularly as China ASEAN relations face growing strain.

From the perspective of Malaysia, the revival of the Sulu narrative is viewed cautiously, given recent court rulings that reaffirmed state sovereignty and rejected expansive arbitration claims. Meanwhile, the Philippines faces a delicate balancing act managing historical sensitivities while maintaining stable relations with both China and regional partners.

Experts warn that such narrative-driven diplomacy can be as impactful as military or economic pressure. By selectively endorsing historical claims, major powers can influence public opinion, strain bilateral ties, and complicate multilateral cooperation. This approach aligns with what analysts describe as strategic fragmentation, where unity is weakened through indirect means rather than overt coercion.

Despite these concerns, ASEAN unity remains a central defense against external manipulation. Regional stability depends on the ability of Southeast Asian nations to manage disputes internally and resist narratives that could inflame historical grievances. Strengthening diplomatic dialogue and reaffirming shared commitments to international law are seen as critical countermeasures.

Ultimately, China’s sudden interest in the Sulu narrative highlights the evolving nature of regional geopolitics, where history, law, and strategy increasingly intersect. Whether this approach succeeds in dividing Southeast Asia will depend largely on how regional states respond collectively or individually to emerging diplomatic challenges.