Triangle: Philippines, US, China

The President is the mouthpiece of our international affairs and our sole representative with foreign nations, the Supreme Court stated in its 2005 ruling on the Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary case. We may extol or criticize the current foreign policy architecture, particularly in the South China Sea, but the ultimate authority rests on our head of state. This was evident in the recent bilateral meeting between President Marcos Jr. and his United States counterpart Joseph Biden, which primarily tackled security cooperation and alliances in the Indo-Pacific.

The two leaders are pushing for freedom of maritime and aerial navigation in the South China Sea, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and reaffirmation of the US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951. More importantly, President Biden has vowed to send a presidential trade and investment mission to the country, the first of its kind, to boost our energy, mining and agriculture sectors. Several American companies have also made investment pledges in the following industries: business process outsourcing, semiconductors, pharmaceutical, cruise and clean energy (BusinessWorld).

I congratulate PBBM and his team for this welcome news. The trade mission would bolster our economy, which the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank say would grow by six percent this year. The IMF even predicts that the Philippines will post the fastest growth in Asia.

Torn between two superpowers

Our relations with America have gone from strength to strength since PBBM’s 2022 trip. Given our strategic geographical location, the Philippines has been pushed to the forefront of the US-China rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. And it seems both countries are on a charm offensive overdrive to gain our loyalty if not partisanship.

In comparison, our relationship with China reached a high point in the Duterte administration, has now vacillated between hot and cold. The culprit is the continuing hostile acts of the Chinese Coast Guard against Filipino seamen and fishers in the South China Sea. In view of China’s transgressive behavior in the Spratly Islands, including territories within the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EZZ), I can see why the Marcos administration has decided to strengthen our defense capabilities in the disputed archipelago through military cooperation with America.

I have supported the pivot to China strategy, mainly for economic reasons. By fortifying our economic ties with China, we can tap the latter’s huge capital resources and consumer market. In 2018, the country became our top trading partner, with $30.3 billion in total trade (Philippine Statistics Authority).

During my recent business trip to several Chinese cities and provinces, I marveled at how the country has rapidly prospered since my last visit in 2019. That is why the government should hold China to its promise of providing us with investments, grants and financial support to fund our socioeconomic agenda. We should do the same with the US regarding their pledges and commitments. As a practical person, I would like to see how our bilateral relations with either superpower benefit us in terms of uplifting our quality of life.

Complicated relations

But as reported by The STAR in February, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has filed 77 diplomatic protests against China’s illegal acts under the Marcos government.

So, are Sino-Philippine ties in danger of moving towards the ‘frenemy’ category? How sincere is China as a friend? Or is it a ‘fiend’ if we believe the anti-China rhetoric of Western media and policymakers? A country poised to take territories and resources away from weaker nation-states through military power or debt-trap diplomacy.

I have also wondered why a maritime incident would always erupt in the Spratlys shortly after a Philippine-China bilateral meeting. I do not know whether the China Coast Guard simply disregards or pretends to ignore such diplomatic dialogue. However, their immediate and appalling course of action is to drive Filipinos away by force, threat or intimidation.

It has happened twice in the last four months. In January, the China Coast Guard forced our fishermen to leave Ayungin Shoal. Days prior, PBBM and President Xi Jinping agreed to establish a direct communication mechanism between China’s Foreign Ministry and the DFA to resolve territorial disputes. They also looked forward to convening the 4th Meeting of the Joint Coast Guard Committee and Annual Defense Security Talks.

Last month, a Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) vessel carrying media men figured in a near-collision with a Chinese Coast Guard ship in Ayungin Shoal. The incident occurred a day after China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Qin Gang paid a courtesy call on PBBM. China accused the PCG vessel of premeditated and provocative intrusion on the waters of R’enai Jao (Ayungin Shoal). The DFA called the China Coast Guard to task for interfering in PCG’s patrol mission under the freedom of navigation principle and as provided under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Once again, the incident has made me question China’s sincerity with us. What happened to the high-level communication mechanism that the Chinese officials promised to establish? The President said the country has already notified China regarding our communication team. The other party has yet to finalize its counterpart. What is the progress on the supposed meeting between our Coast Guards?

At a time when the Chinese government has called on the Philippines to be neutral vis-à-vis the Sino-US conflict, its Coast Guard has been relentless in its acts of bullying in the disputed territories. China’s aggressive behavior is further pushing us into the arms of America.

In the face of such belligerence and seeming subterfuge, I am relieved that the Marcos administration continues to adopt a diplomatic tact.

Of course, the South China Sea dispute should not wholly define Philippine-China relations. But it might become a bottom line or non-negotiable for the country in the short run.