THE latest summit of Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Donald Trump of the United States in Washington on Sept. 23 to 25 has demonstrated again that both powers are recognizing the value of dialogue over confrontation. Strategic competition remains a defining feature of their relationship. But Beijing and Washington understand the risks of allowing rivalry to escalate into conflict.
For the Philippines, however, this evolving geopolitical reality raises an important question: Will Manila continue to frame its China policy through the lens of confrontation, even as the US and China seek ways to stabilize their ties?
Presently, the Philippines has increasingly justified a hardening posture toward China on the assumption that strategic competition between Beijing and Washington would continue to intensify. This assumption has influenced defense cooperation, military access agreements, force modernization and public discourse. China has been portrayed primarily as a security threat, while closer alignment with the US has been presented as the security guarantee.
Yet, history demonstrates that major powers often compete and cooperate simultaneously. Despite their differences, both powers have compelling reasons to prevent competition from deteriorating into open confrontation. Global economic stability, trade, technological innovation, public health, climate governance and regional peace all require sustained China-US communication.
The prospect of a China-US reset reveals the inconvenient truth that great powers ultimately pursue their own interests, not those of their allies or partners. This observation is not cynical. It is simply how the international system works.
For this reason, strategic autonomy should remain the cornerstone of Philippine foreign policy. Strategic autonomy does not mean abandoning alliances. Nor does it mean accommodating China at the expense of Philippine sovereignty. Rather, it means preserving the nation’s ability to make independent decisions free from excessive dependence on any external power.
The danger of excessive alignment is that it creates a false sense of certainty. Smaller states sometimes assume that the interests of their allies will always coincide with their own. History teaches otherwise. Administrations change. Strategic priorities shift. Policies evolve. Partnerships are recalibrated according to changing national interests.
What remains constant is geography. China will remain the Philippines’ neighbor regardless of political circumstances. The US will remain an important ally, but it will always view the Indo-Pacific through the prism of broader American strategic interests. The Philippines must, therefore, avoid becoming overly dependent on either side.
Strategic autonomy seeks the opposite outcome. It enables the Philippines to strengthen defense cooperation with the US while maintaining constructive economic relations with China. It creates opportunities to engage multiple partners without becoming captive to the agenda of any one power.
Strategic autonomy protects the Philippines from uncertainty in great-power relations. If China and the US intensify their rivalry, the Philippines retains the flexibility needed to safeguard its interests. If the two powers improve their relationship, the Philippines avoids being trapped in policies that no longer serve its national objectives.
This does not mean abandoning Philippine claims in the West Philippine Sea. But defending sovereignty and practicing diplomacy are not mutually exclusive pursuits. Unfortunately, public discourse often presents a false choice between resistance and engagement. Those who advocate dialogue with China are sometimes portrayed as weak or naïve, while those favoring a harder line are viewed as the only defenders of national interests. Such thinking oversimplifies complex reality.
The Philippines has every right to protect its maritime interests. At the same time, it has every reason to maintain constructive political, economic, cultural and people-to-people relations with China. These objectives are not contradictory. Successful diplomacy often requires pursuing both simultaneously.
The same principle applies to relations with the US. The alliance remains an important pillar of Philippine security, contributing to military modernization and deterrence. But alliances should expand policy options rather than restrict them.
The objective of Philippine foreign policy must be the advancement of Philippine interests and not the interests of any external power. The Philippines does not have to choose between China and the US but to choose Filipino interests above all.
Rommel C. Banlaoi, PhD, is the 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.
