Why Manila must keep talking to Beijing

There is a recent argument portraying Philippine-China energy cooperation in the South China Sea as a chimera, an illusion doomed by sovereignty disputes, legal complexities, and domestic political sensitivities.

This skepticism is valid and truly understandable. The 2016 arbitral ruling, Manila’s constitutional constraints, and Beijing’s assertive maritime posture are complicating the prospects for joint development of natural gas and oil.

Yet, dismissing dialogue outright is narrow, shortsighted, and missing the big picture. Even if oil and gas projects remain elusive, the act of talking with China is itself a strategic imperative to stabilize the current state of Philippines-China relations.

Dialogue as strategy. Dialogue can repair damaged political ties, rebuild trust, and open channels of communication needed to prevent crises and avoid unintended violent encounter at sea. Talking with Beijing can signal Manila’s willingness to engage constructively despite ongoing differences on sea disputes.

Structured talks on energy cooperation, even exploratory, provide incremental confidence-building measures that can reduce misperceptions and manage tensions. Engagement does not mean surrender or appeasement. It means managing disputes while pursuing Philippine national interests in other domains.

Beyond energy: Strategic spillovers. Energy cooperation should be viewed as a gateway to broader collaboration across multiple sectors. In trade and investment, China’s role as one of the Philippines’ largest trading partners means that improved ties could help stabilize supply chains and attract investments in manufacturing and technology.

Tourism also stands to benefit, as reviving the flow of Chinese visitors depends on political goodwill and is crucial for supporting economic recovery. Infrastructure presents another opportunity, with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative offering financing options that can complement the Philippines’ domestic development priorities and accelerate key projects.

Moreover, sustained Philippine-China engagement on energy issues contributes to the normative project of constructing a maritime order in the South China Sea that is grounded in international law. Every time Manila insists that any cooperative arrangement must be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it reinforces the legal framework that protects the rights of all coastal states in the region. Every time Beijing is brought back to the negotiating table through the lure of economic cooperation, it is acknowledging that negotiation, rather than unilateral assertion, is the appropriate mechanism for managing these disputes. There is no doubt that the process is incremental, imperfect, and often frustratingly slow. But it is the foundation upon which a stable regional order can be built.

Policy options. To transform dialogue into actionable trust-building, Manila should institutionalize a joint energy dialogue mechanism to guarantee consistent communication even when projects stall. It should also pursue incremental confidence-building projects in noncontroversial areas such as marine environmental research and protection, fisheries management, and renewable energy development.

These were, in fact, already done in 2019 when China and Philippines created various working groups to pursue cooperation in those areas. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. There is a need to just take stock of these initial achievements to move forward.

By linking energy talks to broader economic cooperation, Manila can embed these discussions within a comprehensive partnership framework. At the same time, it must safeguard sovereignty while engaging pragmatically, maintaining firmness on the arbitral ruling while still pursuing mutually beneficial projects.

Finally, enhancing transparency and reciprocity will be essential to build domestic legitimacy and reduce suspicion of secret concessions.

Pragmatism over idealism. Critics warn that engagement undermines sovereignty. But pragmatism dictates that the Philippines cannot afford perpetual hostility with its largest neighbor.

Indeed, sovereignty must be safeguarded. But engagement is also paramount to manage disputes while advancing national interests. Manila must adopt a dual-track approach: firmness in sovereignty, openness in cooperation.

Conclusion. Energy cooperation may indeed be hard and elusive. But the dialogue surrounding it is a bridge toward cooperation in other areas.

For Manila, the challenge is not to abandon oil talks but to harness them strategically in order to repair trust, open channels of communication, and promote cooperation in various functional areas. In this way, what some dismiss as a chimera can, in fact, become a catalyst for national gains.

—————-

Rommel C. Banlaoi, Ph.D., is the director of the Philippines-China Studies Center at Diliman College and president of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies.