WITH our national interest paramount, we will always pursue constant dialogue and diplomatic approaches to the resolution of any issue that may arise, said the Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr in his second State of the Nation Address (SONA) this week. In the light of the recent meeting between former Philippines President Duterte and President Xi Jinping in Beijing, the intention of using dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the contentious international issues, is being perceived as an ostensibly positive gesture from President Marcos Jr. while sidestepping explicit references to the contentious maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea, President Marcos has indirectly signalled that he does not want to “disturb” the hard-won rapprochement achieved between the countries during the tenure of his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, who charted a new course by abandoning Manila’s unidimensional pro-United States stance in favour of a more balanced and impartial approach.
This strategic pivot has yielded tangible dividends for the Philippines in the past, reaping substantial benefits. By eschewing overt confrontation and prioritizing pragmatic engagement, Duterte exhibited an adept understanding of realpolitik dynamics in the region, piloting a nuanced path towards progress and stability while safeguarding his country’s interests in a complex geopolitical milieu. Now, by mentioning dialogue as a means of resolving disputes at the most important speech of the year, President Marcos has indicated a willingness to seek common ground and pursue diplomatic avenues.
Factually speaking, this approach somewhat resembles a longstanding diplomatic position of Manila, preceding the tenure of former President Benigno Aquino III in 2010. That realistic strategy not only facilitated Manila’s maintenance of balanced relations with both Beijing and Washington concurrently but also played a vital role in fostering regional stability. The pragmatic and nuanced stance exhibited by the Philippines served as a stabilizing force in the region and contributed to the overall equilibrium in the broader geopolitical landscape. As a part of its China-containment agenda, the machinations of Washington in sowing seeds of division between China and its neighbours, and compelled the Aquino III Administration to adopt a confrontational route.
Once a champion of regional autonomy, the Philippines was reduced to being a mere pawn on the United States’ geopolitical chessboard in Asia. Succumbing to pressure from Washington, the Philippines abandoned its mutual understanding with China to set aside territorial disputes in pursuit of shared development. At the encouragement of Washington, the Philippines took the step of unilaterally abandoning the tacit agreement it had with China to set aside their territorial disputes in order to pursue development together. This drastic shift reflected the undue influence of the US in steering the Philippines away from a path of sovereign decision-making and cooperative regional engagement.
Nevertheless, despite President Marcos’ approach in projecting a neutral stance in the first few months of his presidency, later on we witnessed a palpable drift towards strengthening ties with the United States. Two drastic steps by President Marcos exposed this shift in the foreign policy towards Washington, revealing its vulnerability to American influence. One, under pressure from the US, his government attempted to amplify the arbitration case initiated by Aquino III. And two, Manila swiftly granted approval for the establishment of four additional American military bases, bringing the total count to nine.
Among these bases, three are situated on Luzon, the main island, with strategic proximity to Taiwan Island, encompassing a naval base in Santa Ana, Cagayan Province, positioned merely 400 kilometres away from Taiwan Island. The fourth site is situated on Balabac Island, strategically positioned facing the South China Sea. These military bases may provide vital tractions for the US military to potentially intervene in the contested waters of the South China Sea and influence matters concerning Taiwan. For obvious reasons, these two measures gave rise to the perception that the Marcos Administration had somewhat aligned itself with the American camp. The Duterte regime abstained from pursuing neither of the two paths.
Marcos must view Duterte’s recent meeting with President Xi through a positive lens. By hosting Duterte, Beijing has once again underscored its unwavering commitment to bilateral ties. This must be seen as an unambiguous message for Manila to adhere to the established agreements and avoid any veering off course. Good thing is that, unlike some of the close allies of the US allies, Marcos wisely avoided mentioning China in his state of the nation address. The US has been desperately trying to pull the Philippines into its orbit, positioning Manila as a pro-America player in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. However, the crucial question remains: how does the Philippines perceive this role?
ASEAN member states, including Manila, are generally cautious about taking sides between China and the US, mindful of maintaining a balanced stance to preserve regional stability. The Philippines has been maintaining robust economic and trade relations with China, a dimension where the US falls short. In the present context, the country’s priority lies in pragmatic economic development rather than being swayed by grand geopolitical ambitions. Despite the presence of pro-American elements in the Philippines, Manila appears to be cognizant of the potential costs associated with expanding US military presence and bolstering defence capabilities. This awareness makes it unlikely for Manila to hastily jump onto the US’ bandwagon.
China, while not opposing the Philippines’ pursuit of bilateral relations with other nations, persistently emphasizes that such relations should not undermine ties with China. China has always staunchly rejected any form of confrontational blocs in the region. The latest remark of Marcos, however, is a positive development that will help stabilize the regional situation. As an ASEAN member, the Philippines’ priority lies in securing peace and stability in the South China Sea. Cooperation with concerned parties to expedite consultations on a Code of Conduct has become crucial to safeguarding regional peace. The Philippines has an opportunity to adopt a balanced approach and once again resume its past role as a stabilizing factor for both China and the US, facilitating the management and resolution of their differences.
—The writer is political analyst, based in Karachi.
Email: [email protected]
