Is US-Philippines Alignment in the South China Sea a Risky Gamble?

At the recent 61st Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo placed the South China Sea (SCS) dispute at the heart of geopolitical discussions. Rubio’s statement emphasizing a strengthened U.S.-Philippines alliance to counter “China’s destabilizing actions” raises important questions about Washington’s true intentions in the region.

Is the U.S. Seeking Regional Stability or Containment?

Is the U.S. genuinely committed to ensuring regional stability, or is it playing a long-standing strategic game, leveraging regional allies to contain a rising power while avoiding direct involvement in conflicts? This question takes on added significance when examined within the broader context of U.S. foreign policy patterns in other regions and historical precedents of great power rivalries.

From a strategic perspective, the U.S.’s motivations for encouraging Philippine assertiveness in the SCS go beyond regional security. Security, according to this U.S. framework, is closely tied to maintaining global primacy and preventing any single power from challenging its hegemony. This aligns with what Allison describes as the Thucydides Trap: the idea that an established power inevitably feels compelled to counter a rising challenger to preserve the existing global order.

A view of the Pentagon in Arlington, the United States, January 27, 2025. /CFP

A view of the Pentagon in Arlington, the United States, January 27, 2025. /CFP

The SCS is viewed by Washington as a critical pressure point to weaken China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific. By intensifying tensions, the U.S. aims to destabilize the region, making it harder for China to access trade routes and natural resources. Regional waters have become a strategic chessboard where U.S. influence is maintained – not necessarily to protect smaller nations but to safeguard its own strategic interests. Disrupting shipping lanes through the SCS could slow China’s economic growth, putting pressure on the Chinese economy.

The contested waters are believed to hold significant natural resources that the U.S., in collaboration with regional allies, seeks to access and potentially control.

Philippines’ Options: Washington’s Security Blanket or a Risky Gamble?

For the Philippines, security means protecting its territory, economic interests, and sovereignty. While aligning with the U.S. may seem beneficial on the surface, history shows that smaller countries often become pawns in larger geopolitical games, as illustrated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ukraine, initially backed by the U.S., now faces severe military and economic vulnerabilities, highlighting that U.S. support does not guarantee long-term stability or prosperity for its allies.

After decades of focusing its military and strategic resources on the Middle East, the U.S. is now recalibrating its attention toward the Asia-Pacific, viewing this region as a decisive theater for global power competition. By redirecting its resources and diplomatic energy to Asia, the U.S. aims to curb China’s rise and safeguard its own global dominance.

The Thin Solace of Military Alliances

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanded in 2023, grants the U.S. access to more Philippine military bases, some strategically positioned near the Taiwan Straits. This intensified military cooperation solidifies the Philippines as a frontline state in U.S. regional maneuvering. However, history teaches us that these alliances often come with limited commitments.

Both the Philippines and China have previously expressed a preference for resolving disputes through diplomacy without U.S. direct involvement. Yet, Washington’s coercive diplomacy consistently frames the SCS as a military arena rather than a space for peaceful resolution. This approach risks escalating tensions rather than fostering stability.

Manila must also carefully consider the potential economic costs of this militarized posture. Increased tensions could deter foreign investment, disrupt maritime commerce, and introduce 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. Overreliance on U.S. security guarantees might be perceived as diverging from this collective approach. Economically, China is Manila’s top trading partner, surpassing $50 billion in trade in 2023 alone. China has also made significant investments in the Philippines’ infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative. Rising military tensions could jeopardize these economic gains, ultimately hindering future development.

China’s Calls for Peaceful Coexistence

China’s diplomatic posture consistently emphasizes 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, like establishing joint oil and gas exploration initiatives, have demonstrated the potential for mutually beneficial engagement. However, the U.S.’s insistence on framing the SCS as a theatre of military rivalry complicates these diplomatic efforts.

A Choice for the Philippines

While Washington’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy relies on building coalitions to counter China, recent history – from Ukraine to the Middle East – demonstrates the perils of depending too heavily on U.S. assurances.

Manila can avoid becoming another instrument in Washington’s geopolitical contest by carefully reassessing its strategic calculus. It can prioritize its own national security within the evolving global order by pursuing a more independent path.