China-Philippines Relations: Reset or Calculated Stabilisation

Diplomatic relations between China and the Philippines are experiencing a period of apparent warming, characterized by a reduction in maritime confrontations and a renewed focus on high-level dialogue. This shift follows years of escalating tension in the South China Sea, particularly regarding territorial claims and resupply missions to disputed features.

Analysts are currently debating whether this trend represents a fundamental reset of the bilateral relationship or a calculated stabilisation intended to manage risks without resolving underlying sovereignty disputes, according to analysis by CNA.

The Framework of Stabilisation

The current thaw is largely attributed to a provisional arrangement reached between Manila and Beijing concerning resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre, a grounded Philippine naval vessel serving as a military outpost at Second Thomas Shoal. This agreement was designed to prevent physical clashes between the two coast guards, which had previously involved the use of water cannons and collisions.

Under this arrangement, the Philippines continues its resupply efforts while China has reduced the intensity of its blocking maneuvers. This tactical shift has lowered the immediate risk of a kinetic encounter that could potentially trigger the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States.

The stabilisation effort is seen by some as a pragmatic move by both capitals. For Manila, it reduces the immediate danger to its personnel; for Beijing, it lowers the risk of a direct military confrontation with the United States during a period of broader geopolitical volatility.

Reset vs. Tactical Pause

The distinction between a diplomatic reset and calculated stabilisation lies in the intent and longevity of the current peace. A reset would imply a shift in the strategic approach of either nation, potentially involving new frameworks for joint resource management or a formal agreement on a code of conduct in the South China Sea.

However, evidence suggests the current state is more likely a calculated stabilisation. Both nations maintain their original territorial claims, and China continues to maintain a significant presence in the region. The warming of ties appears to be a method of managing the conflict rather than solving it.

The current warming of ties is less about a change in core interests and more about the management of friction to avoid an unintended escalation.

CNA Analysis

Observers note that China often employs a strategy of alternating between aggression and diplomatic overtures to create leverage. By easing tensions, Beijing may be attempting to weaken the Philippines’ perceived need for increased security cooperation with Washington.

The Role of External Influence

The United States remains a critical factor in the dynamics between Manila and Beijing. The Philippines has expanded U.S. Access to military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a move that China views as a provocation.

The current stabilisation allows the Philippines to maintain its security alliances while avoiding a total breakdown in relations with its largest trading partner. This balancing act is essential for Manila, which relies on China for significant imports and investment, even as it seeks U.S. Protection for its maritime sovereignty.

The sustainability of this warming period depends on whether both sides can maintain the provisional arrangements at sea without one party perceiving a strategic advantage in returning to more aggressive tactics.

Current Outlook

While the immediate atmosphere has improved, the underlying causes of the dispute—overlapping Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the interpretation of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling—remain unresolved. China does not recognize the 2016 ruling, which invalidated its “nine-dash line” claim over most of the South China Sea.

For now, the relationship is defined by a cautious diplomacy. Both governments have emphasized the importance of communication channels to prevent miscalculations, but neither has signaled a willingness to concede on the core issue of territorial sovereignty.