Lack of resolve invites abuse

There is an ongoing debate on how the Philippines should react in the increasingly aggressive and combative reaction to the Philippines’ insistence on asserting its ownership over the Philippine Sea. China started by using its Coast Guard ships to block Filipino fishermen and the resupply ship. Now it has moved on to the next stage of using water cannon, most recently against the BRP Teresa Magbanua.

The main issue is to what extent the Philippines will defend its territorial sovereignty. Under the Duterte regime, the Philippine response was to totally submit to Chinese aggression. There are two things that the Philippines needs to take into account in determining how to respond to these challenges to its territorial sovereign rights.

The first is that the Philippines must ultimately depend on the American commitment to help defend the Philippines. The second is to analyze and understand the consequences of not challenging Chinese incursions in Philippine territory.

The task of analyzing potential American response in the conflict in the South China Sea must take into account that this must be analyzed from the perspective of the global conflict between the Russia-China alliance versus the democracies of the world.

Historically, a reputation for weakness has invited aggression from opposing forces. For example, it is believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in 2022 after believing that the United States and Western Europe lacked the resolve to confront any invasion by the Kremlin.

It is believed that Putin arrived at this conclusion because the West did not respond to the Russian annexation of Crimea, which was at that time part of the Ukrainian nation. Then in 2021 came the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was a demonstration of Washington’s lack of commitment even to its closest allies.

Even on the day Russia invaded Crimea, US President Biden declared that Putin launched his attack to “test the resolve of the West.” Now, the United States and Western Europe are incurring significant costs sending billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine in order to prove to Putin that it is resolute and committed to its allies.

In the rest of the world, it seems that American credibility that it would always defend its allies is constantly being questioned.

This constant questioning of American resolve is actually the fault of the United States. Many nations believe that the United States has lost its previous reputation, strength and commitment. Regaining that reputation depends on the extent to which the United States is willing to support friends such as Ukraine, Taiwan and the Philippines.

If the United States, for example, is deemed to become soft about its support for allies, China might infer that it can invade Taiwan without serious consequences.

In a study by the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, new research has produced new insights about the importance of credibility and particularly about what creates a reputation for resolve. One conclusion is that maintaining a reputation for resolve is important to deter adversaries and to reassure allies.

Today’s great power competition is back to the Cold War state. So far, China’s aggressive posture has not yet triggered a full blown war. However, the same cannot be said of Russia. Its invasion of Ukraine was totally unexpected, even by international experts.

There are two prevailing theories about the increasingly aggressive behavior of China and Russia. The first is that China and Russia want to revise the geopolitical status quo in pursuit of their nationalist goals, great power status, ideological dominance or the ambitions of their authoritarian leaders.

The second theory is that China and Russia are fundamentally insecure and their aggressive behavior is to protect themselves against an external threat. Insecure states normally expand their military forces and seize territory that could form a buffer state.

In the first case, when a country faces a greedy state, the standard policy is to deter it. In the second case, when the world faces an insecure state, the world must confront what is termed in international theory as security dilemma. When it faces a security dilemma, countries such as the United States and Western Europe and its allies like the Philippines must improve its deterrent capabilities.

Dealing with an adversary like China and Russia requires maintaining a stronger deterrent because any sign of weakness would tempt the adversary to take aggressive actions.

This ongoing debate over how to confront China is both complex and dangerous. The possibility of conflict in our region is more possible on the issue of Taiwan. As China’s military power and potential increase, so will military and political tensions also correspondingly increase.

The Philippine dilemma is therefore very acute. The possibility of China surrendering its aggressive intentions in the West Philippine Sea seems very remote. At the same time, the Philippines must continue to signal to the world that it is prepared to defend its sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea.

The Philippines must continue to maintain a strong deterrent to ward off any wrong conclusion from China that the Philippines does not have the resolve to defend itself. This in fact will only increase the possibility of a total takeover by China.