AS Philippines-China relations continue to deteriorate amid geopolitical tensions in the West Philippine Sea, issues once confined to diplomacy and security are increasingly spilling into education, culture and people-to-people exchanges.
The recent departure of Chinese language teachers from the Philippines reflects this trend. While seemingly confined to language instruction, the issue raises broader questions about how states balance national security concerns with the need for international educational engagement.
The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of deepening strategic mistrust between Manila and Beijing and heightened scrutiny of China-related activities in the country. As a result, concerns have emerged that some educational and cultural programs could be used, intentionally or otherwise, to advance political influence.
Such concerns cannot be dismissed. In an increasingly complex security environment, governments are expected to remain vigilant not only against traditional military threats but also against more subtle forms of foreign influence.
Safeguarding national security is a fundamental responsibility of the state. Yet caution should not automatically translate into viewing educational engagement itself as a security threat.
Around the world, there is a growing tendency to view interactions with geopolitical competitors primarily through a security lens. While understandable during periods of strategic uncertainty, this approach carries risks. When education, culture and academic exchanges become overly securitized, the line between vigilance and suspicion begins to blur. Teachers, researchers, students and educational institutions can become unintended casualties of broader geopolitical rivalries.
The recent departure of Chinese language teachers from the Philippines illustrates this dilemma. Language education is more than classroom instruction. It develops communication skills, promotes cultural literacy, and enables societies to understand one another through direct engagement rather than stereotypes. For countries seeking deeper insights into China’s political system, economic development and foreign policy behavior, linguistic competence and cultural familiarity are indispensable.
The Philippines has long recognized the importance of strengthening its expertise on China. Policymakers, diplomats, academics, journalists, business leaders and security practitioners have repeatedly emphasized the need for greater China literacy.
Such expertise, however, cannot be developed in isolation. It requires language training, academic exchanges, scholarly interaction and sustained educational opportunities.
At the same time, it would be naive to ignore the reality that educational programs can serve broader foreign policy objectives. History shows that major powers have long used educational exchanges, scholarships, cultural diplomacy and academic partnerships to build influence abroad.
China is not unique in this regard. The more important policy question is whether governments possess the institutional capacity to distinguish legitimate educational cooperation from activities that genuinely threaten national interests.
This is where policy sophistication becomes essential. Rather than treating educational engagement and national security as competing objectives, the Philippines should pursue both through carefully designed safeguards that should not single out China. These should apply equally to all foreign-funded educational, cultural and research programs, regardless of their country of origin. Transparency requirements should be strengthened and institutionalized.
However, transparency must not become a substitute for evidence, nor should oversight be driven by generalized suspicion. An overly broad security framework may undermine rather than enhance national resilience.
Excessive securitization risks discouraging legitimate academic cooperation, reducing opportunities for dialogue, and limiting the development of informed expertise on China. Educational initiatives may eventually be judged less on their actual risks than on their geopolitical associations.
The departure of Chinese language teachers should therefore not be viewed as a victory for any side. Instead, it highlights the difficult balance that states must increasingly manage between openness and security in an era of growing strategic competition.
The classroom should not become a battleground of geopolitical rivalry. It should remain a space where knowledge is acquired, understanding is cultivated, friendship is sustained, and future generations develop the skills needed to navigate an increasingly complex world.
Rommel C. Banlaoi, PhD, is director of the Philippines-China Studies Center at Diliman College and president of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies. He also served as president of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies.
