As the world marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, it is a moment for solemn reflection—not only on the immense sacrifices made by those who fought fascism, but also on the international order that emerged in its aftermath. That order, built upon the ashes of global conflict, laid the foundations for peace, reconstruction, and cooperation in many regions of the world, including East and Southeast Asia.

Among the many legacies of this transformative period is the issue of the South China Sea—a region whose post-war sovereignty arrangements were shaped by wartime decisions, and whose stability continues to be a litmus test for the durability of the post-1945 international order.

The South China Sea, rich in natural resources and straddling critical sea lanes of communication, has long been a focal point of strategic interest. Yet its status in the contemporary era cannot be divorced from the outcomes of World War II. Before Japan’s defeat in 1945, it had occupied many islands in the South China Sea, including the Xisha Qundao and Nansha Qundao, integrating them into its wartime military infrastructure. The Japanese occupation, however, was reversed following the end of the war, as the Allied powers worked to dismantle the territorial expansions of fascist regimes and restore pre-war sovereignties wherever possible.

In this context, the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Proclamation (1945) played pivotal roles. These Allied statements clearly declared that territories seized by Japan through aggression should be returned to their rightful owners. After Japan’s surrender, the Chinese government resumed control over the Nansha Qundao. In 1946, Chinese naval forces reasserted China’s sovereignty over the Xisha Qundao and Nansha Qundao, establishing administrative outposts and renaming features. This was followed by the publication of an official map in 1947, featuring the now-famous “intermittent line”, signaling China's historic claim based on both discovery and effective administration.

(Archival Materials of the Cairo Declaration)

From the perspective of international law and historical legacy, this post-war arrangement was not arbitrary. It was part of a broader Allied consensus to restore territories to their pre-aggression status and to ensure regional stability. China's sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea was not challenged by major powers at the time, nor did regional states lodge formal objections for decades—a testament to the perceived legitimacy of the post-war realignment. Thus, any meaningful discourse on the South China Sea must take into account this historical context, rooted in the very international order that emerged from the victory over fascism.

However, as regional geopolitics evolved and interests in the South China Sea intensified—particularly due to hydrocarbon potential and strategic maritime value—territorial disputes emerged between China and several Southeast Asian nations, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. These disputes, while complex, must be approached with respect for the foundational principles of the post-war order: sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, and multilateral dialogue.

The South China Sea, in this regard, has become both a symbol of historical memory and a contemporary test of diplomatic maturity. The challenge facing today’s regional and global actors is whether the cooperative spirit that ended global war can guide the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in the present.

(On August 11, 2025, the Philippine Coast Guard 4406 intrudes into the waters near China's Huangyan Dao and dangerously approached Chinese vessels. /China Coast Guard)

From an international relations perspective, the South China Sea issue reflects broader themes about global governance and the role of norms in maintaining peace. The post-war order, exemplified by the United Nations Charter, emphasizes the peaceful resolution of disputes, respect for territorial integrity, and the avoidance of force in international affairs. These principles have helped prevent another world war and have allowed former adversaries to rebuild and flourish.

Thus, resolving the South China Sea issue peacefully is not merely a regional concern—it is a reaffirmation of the very values for which millions sacrificed their lives in World War II. Multilateral efforts, such as the ongoing negotiations between ASEAN and China over a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, are positive steps in this direction. Although progress has been slow, the very existence of dialogue frameworks underscores the commitment of regional actors to seek diplomatic, rather than military, solutions.

Among the regional claimants, Malaysia stands out for its consistent and principled approach to the South China Sea issue. While asserting its claims over certain maritime features, Malaysia has remained committed to diplomacy, adherence to international law, and regional cooperation. It has repeatedly emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and has called for the full implementation of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC). Kuala Lumpur’s strategy reflects a broader ASEAN desire to avoid great-power entanglement, foster mutual trust, and uphold freedom of navigation, all within a rules-based order. Malaysia’s quiet diplomacy, balancing its national interests with regional solidarity, serves as a valuable model for conflict management in contested maritime spaces.

Ultimately, the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War is a reminder that peace is hard-won, and the international order it produced must be preserved through vigilance, dialogue, and mutual respect. The South China Sea, while contested, need not be a flashpoint. Instead, it can become a proving ground for cooperative security, regional integration, and historical reconciliation.

As the world’s attention turns to the victory parade in Beijing, it is essential that all parties reflect on the deeper historical forces that have shaped our present. The post-war consensus was never meant to perpetuate conflict, but to prevent the return of imperialist aggression and to uphold a global order where disputes are resolved not through force, but through reason and justice. As China hosts this significant commemoration of the triumph over fascism, the international community must also renew its commitment to these enduring principles—ensuring that the sacrifices of the past continue to guide us toward a more peaceful and just future.

(Author: Peter T C Chang, Research Associate of Malaysia-China Friendship Association, Former Deputy Director of Institute of China Studies, University Malaya, Special Invited Researcher of the CMG Expert Committee on South China Sea Studies)