US-Philippines alignment in the South China Sea is a risky gamble

The China Coast Guard (CCG) 3502 fleet conducting formation training in waters adjacent to China's Huangyan Dao, May 17, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]

By Jessica Durdu

At the 61st Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo again placed the South China Sea (SCS) dispute at the center of geopolitical discussions.

Rubio's statement about strengthening the U.S.-Philippines alliance to counter "China's destabilizing actions" raises important questions about Washington's motivations in the region. Is the U.S. truly invested in ensuring regional stability, or is it following a long-standing strategic playbook, using regional allies to contain rising powers while avoiding direct entanglement in conflicts of its own making? This question gains further significance when examined through the broader lens of U.S. foreign policy patterns in other regions and historical precedents of great power rivalries.

From a broader strategic perspective, the U.S.'s motivations for encouraging the Philippines' assertiveness in the SCS extend beyond regional security. The concept of security is not universal. It differs based on history, geopolitical priorities and national interests.

For the U.S., security is deeply tied to maintaining its global primacy, preventing any single power from challenging its hegemony. This framework aligns with what Allison describes as the Thucydides Trap, i.e. the idea that an established power feels compelled to counter a rising challenger to preserve the existing global order.

Washington views SCS as a critical pressure point to weaken China's influence in the Asia-Pacific. By provoking tensions, the U.S. aims to destabilize the region, making it harder for China access to trade routes and natural resources. Regional waters have become a chessboard where U.S. influence is maintained not necessarily to protect smaller nations but to safeguard their strategic interests. The SCS serves as a key corridor for China's trade and disrupting this flow could slow China's economic growth.

The contested waters are believed to hold significant natural resources that the U.S., in collaboration with its regional allies, seeks to access and potentially control. The strategic location of the Philippines offers Washington a vantage point to monitor Chinese activities, particularly in the broader Asia-Pacific.

For the Philippines, security means protecting its territory, economic interests and sovereignty. While aligning with the U.S. may seem beneficial, history shows that smaller countries often become tools in U.S. strategies, as seen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ukraine, initially backed by the U.S., now faces military and economic vulnerabilities, highlighting that U.S. support doesn't guarantee long-term stability or prosperity for its allies.

For more than half a century, the U.S. concentrated its military and strategic efforts on the Middle East. With its withdrawal from that region, Washington has recalibrated its focus toward the Asia-Pacific, identifying it as the new theater for global power competition. By shifting its resources and diplomatic attention to Asia, the U.S. aims to slow China's rise and protect its own dominance in global affairs.

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanded in 2023, provides the U.S. access to additional Philippine military bases, some of which are strategically positioned near the Taiwan Straits. By intensifying military cooperation, the U.S. is ensuring that the Philippines remains a frontline state in its regional maneuvering.

Washington's military alliances often come with limited commitment. Without U.S. involvement, both the Philippines and China have expressed a preference for resolving disputes through diplomacy. However, Washington's coercive diplomacy ensures that the SCS remains a military rather than a diplomatic issue. In doing so, the U.S. risks escalating tensions rather than fostering stability. Manila should also consider the potential economic costs of military posturing. Increased militarization may deter foreign investors, disrupt maritime commerce and inject uncertainty into the Philippines' long-term economic development.

Furthermore, the Philippines risks straining ties with ASEAN, which prioritizes peaceful dialogue and a unified stance on the SCS. Relying too heavily on U.S. security guarantees might be seen as diverging from this collective approach. Economically, China, the Philippines' top trading partner with over $50 billion in trade in 2023, has invested significantly through the Belt and Road Initiative, notably in Manila's infrastructure. Thus, rising military tensions could jeopardize these economic gains, potentially hindering future development.

China's diplomatic posture has consistently emphasized peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and shared development. While maritime disputes persist, China has repeatedly called for bilateral dialogue with the Philippines to address these issues through non-military mechanisms. Collaborative efforts, such as the establishment of joint oil and gas exploration initiatives, have demonstrated the potential for constructive engagement that benefits both countries' people. However, the United States' insistence on framing the SCS as a theater of military rivalry complicates these diplomatic efforts.

While Washington's "Indo-Pacific" strategy relies on coalition-building to counter China, recent history – from Ukraine to the Middle East – demonstrates the perils of depending too heavily on U.S. assurances. The alternative is to follow a path already tested in other regions, where local actors pay the price for broader geopolitical ambitions. By carefully reassessing its strategic calculus, Manila can avoid becoming another instrument in Washington's geopolitical contest while safeguarding its own national security within the evolving global order.

Jessica Durdu, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University.