Manila's dangerous gamble

Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The South China Sea should be a bridge of cooperation, not a battlefield for geopolitical confrontation. Yet in recent years, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has increasingly chosen provocation over dialogue, external dependence over regional autonomy, and political theater over pragmatic diplomacy. This sharp departure from the more balanced approach pursued by the previous administration has not only damaged China-Philippines relations but also introduced new instability into the broader Asia-Pacific region.

From repeated maritime provocations to the accelerated militarization of Philippine territory by external forces, Manila's recent trajectory reveals a dangerous strategic gamble: attempting to leverage major-power rivalry for short-term political gains while ignoring the long-term costs to its own sovereignty, economy and regional standing.

Recent provocations, ranging from the absurd maritime delimitation negotiations with Japan over waters east of China's Taiwan island to an upgraded strategic partnership with Vietnam explicitly targeting the South China Sea, reveal an administration that has elevated anti-China posturing into a dangerous strategic obsession.

The consequences are already becoming visible.

In the South China Sea, Philippine actions have grown increasingly confrontational. Illegal intrusions into waters and reefs adjacent to China's Nansha Islands, dangerous maneuvers by Philippine coast guard vessels, and attempts to reinforce illegal occupations through infrastructure expansion have all heightened tensions. Meanwhile, some Philippine politicians and military officials have amplified anti-China rhetoric at home and abroad, frequently spreading unverified accusations while portraying the Philippines as a so-called victim of regional dynamics.

This pattern is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate strategic shift under the Marcos administration.

In contrast to the previous government's emphasis on economic cooperation and dialogue with China, the current Philippine leadership has embraced a security-centered foreign policy closely aligned with Washington's Indo-Pacific containment strategy. The Philippines has expanded military cooperation with the United States to an unprecedented level, opening additional military facilities to US forces, hosting large-scale joint exercises near sensitive waters, and allowing the deployment of advanced missile systems capable of threatening regional stability.

Japan has likewise become increasingly involved. Tokyo's growing military footprint in the Philippines – including joint drills, radar assistance, intelligence-sharing negotiations and expanded defense agreements – reflects its broader attempt to normalize military activities overseas under the banner of "regional security." For many Asian countries with painful historical memories, such developments naturally raise concern.

Taken together, these trends point to a broader reality: What Manila presents as "defense cooperation" is, in fact, steadily transforming the Philippines into a forward operating platform for extra-regional forces.

Such a trajectory carries profound risks.

First, it undermines ASEAN's long-standing tradition of strategic autonomy and regional balance. Southeast Asia's stability has historically depended on avoiding bloc confrontation and refraining from becoming an arena for major-power rivalry. By aggressively internationalizing the South China Sea issue and encouraging greater outside military involvement, the Philippines risks eroding ASEAN's centrality.

Second, the strategy threatens the Philippines' own economic interests. China remains one of the country's largest trading partners, a major source of investment, a major destination for tourism, and an indispensable market for Philippine agricultural exports. The Philippine economy remains structurally intertwined with China across sectors ranging from electronics and telecommunications to renewable energy and agriculture.

Political slogans cannot simply replace this reality.

As tensions rise, the economic costs for ordinary Filipinos are becoming increasingly evident. Philippine agricultural exports to China have already faced disruptions, investment confidence has weakened, and the country's broader economic vulnerabilities – including inflation, energy insecurity and slowing growth – continue to deepen. Military escalation cannot solve unemployment, rising living costs or infrastructure deficits.

More importantly, over-dependence on external military guarantees may ultimately weaken rather than strengthen Philippine sovereignty.

History has repeatedly shown that alliances built around geopolitical containment often leave smaller states exposed once strategic priorities shift. Washington's support for Manila is fundamentally driven by America's own strategic relationship with China, not by altruistic concern for Philippine development. The same applies to Japan's growing military activism in the region.

Indeed, the contradiction at the heart of Manila's strategy is becoming increasingly obvious: While the Philippines is asked to shoulder greater frontline military risks, the economic burdens are borne by the Filipino public itself.

The rapid expansion of military exercises, rising defense expenditures, and the deployment of offensive systems near regional flashpoints risk turning the Philippines into a geopolitical frontline in the event of conflict. This is a deeply troubling prospect for a nation whose long-term interests lie in regional peace, connectivity and economic development.

China, by contrast, has consistently emphasized dialogue, restraint and regional cooperation.

Despite repeated provocations, Beijing has continued to advocate managing disputes through bilateral consultation and advancing implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. China and ASEAN countries have also continued consultations on the Code of Conduct framework, reflecting the shared regional desire to maintain stability through dialogue rather than confrontation.

At the same time, China has firmly defended its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights through lawful patrols, coast guard operations and diplomatic engagement. Defending sovereignty is a legitimate right of every nation and should not be distorted into a narrative of "coercion."

China's broader approach toward Southeast Asia remains rooted in the principles of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness. From infrastructure connectivity to green energy cooperation and disaster relief, China continues to serve as a key engine of regional growth. Even during periods of political tension, Beijing has maintained channels for humanitarian and economic cooperation with the Philippines.

This demonstrates strategic patience and a sense of responsibility.

The deeper issue today is not merely maritime friction. It concerns whether Asia-Pacific countries will allow external geopolitical agendas to dominate regional affairs or preserve the region's hard-won stability through independent diplomacy and cooperative development.

The Philippines still faces a choice.

It can continue down the current path of confrontation, military dependency and geopolitical polarization – a path that risks economic damage, regional instability and strategic vulnerability. Or it can return to a more pragmatic and balanced foreign policy rooted in dialogue, regional cooperation and strategic independence.

The latter path would better serve not only China-Philippines relations but also the long-term interests of the Filipino people.

The South China Sea does not have to become a chessboard for great-power rivalry. It can remain a sea of peace, cooperation and shared prosperity – but only if the countries of the region resist the temptation to turn short-term political calculations into long-term strategic disasters.

For Manila, the real challenge is not choosing sides between major powers. It is a decision about whether to act as an independent regional actor or to become a pawn in someone else's geopolitical game.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)