A decade after the Arbitral Award, commemorated on July 12, the Philippines-China relations remain tense. Despite diplomatic overtures and economic engagement, unresolved maritime disputes continue to cast a shadow over bilateral relations.
Last month, the Philippine Coast Guard documented China's new research vessel, Tong Ji, operating less than a nautical mile from Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), a day after the removal of a Chinese floating platform inside the lagoon. The incident was accompanied by radio challenges from Chinese military forces against a Philippine surveillance flight.
The banning of Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro and his family from entering China further deepened the deterioration of ties. The Philippines has also recalled its defense attaché from Beijing. These developments highlight the urgency of reviving defense dialogues.
In 2004, China and the Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Cooperation establishing annual dialogues and intelligence exchanges. This created the Philippines-China Defense and Security Dialogue (PCDSD), eventually renamed the Annual Defense and Security Talks (ADST). The ADST encouraged cooperation in counterterrorism, transnational crime, freedom of navigation, and maritime safety.
After its fifth round in 2013, however, the ADST was suspended following the Philippines' arbitration case against China. Attempts to revive the ADST in 2017 and 2023 failed due to hardened positions of both sides on territorial disputes.
There is an urgent need to reconvene the ADST to transform the state of Philippines-China relations from confrontation to cooperation. Structured dialogues like the ADST can mitigate risks by establishing crisis communication channels that reduce miscalculation in contested waters.
While the Bilateral Consultative Mechanism (BCM) in the South China Sea already exists, the ADST remains indispensable to provide a defense-specific platform to discuss military cooperation across traditional and non-traditional security domains, including disaster relief, anti-piracy, and counterterrorism.
Even the United States, despite its great power rivalry with China, continues defense dialogue to manage competition. If Washington sustains such exchanges, Manila has stronger grounds to pursue them.
For defense talks, maritime cooperation and ocean governance are vital agenda items. The Philippines, as an archipelagic state, relies on the sea for food security, trade, and survival. China, as a dominant maritime power, shares interests in sustainable fisheries, maritime safety, and freedom of navigation. Joint efforts in search-and-rescue, disaster management, environmental research, and sustainable resource management can reduce tensions without prejudicing sovereignty claims.
Engaging China in defense dialogue will not weaken the Philippine military alliance with the United States. Instead, defense talks can enhance Philippine sovereignty by broadening Manila's security partnerships with other countries. Reviving talks with Beijing is, in fact, part of pursuing strategic autonomy.
Ocean governance also offers an effective platform for cooperation as mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Reviving defense talks does not mean abandoning sovereignty claims. Dialogue remains the most effective instrument to defend them.
Defense talks are not only about security, they are also good for business. Strategic stability reduces risk premiums, encourages investment, and reassures both domestic and foreign enterprises that tensions will be managed rather than allowed to spiral. A predictable environment attracts capital, sustains trade, and strengthens economic partnerships.
Embedding defense dialogue into the relationship ensures that economic cooperation thrives alongside security cooperation, allowing business confidence to grow in tandem with regional peace. In short, defense dialogue is both a security imperative and an economic strategy that is vital for the Philippines' long-term national interest.
