Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Marcos’s Gamble in the South China Sea

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 4, 2025

A MISSILE for peace—that’s the bold offer at the heart of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s latest geopolitical gamble. As tensions in the South China Sea reach a boiling point, Marcos proposes removing the US Typhon missile system in exchange for China dialing back its aggression. But is this a masterstroke of diplomacy or a risky concession? The answer lies in the intricate web of power, strategy, and international law that governs this conflict. Here’s what’s at stake:

Marcos’s Proposal: A Calculated Gambit or a Strategic Misstep?

President Marcos’s offer to China—halting the deployment of the US Typhon missile system in exchange for an end to Chinese aggression—reflects a delicate balancing act. On the surface, this proposal appears to be an attempt to de-escalate tensions and assert Philippine sovereignty. However, it also raises critical questions about the Philippines’ strategic priorities and its relationships with both the US and China.

Potential Benefits for the Philippines:

De-escalation of Tensions: If China were to accept the deal, it could temporarily reduce the frequency of aggressive incidents in the West Philippine Sea, providing relief to Filipino fishermen and coast guard personnel.
Sovereignty Assertion: By framing the proposal as a quid pro quo, Marcos positions the Philippines as an active negotiator rather than a passive victim of Chinese coercion.
Economic Considerations: The Philippines has significant economic ties with China, and a reduction in tensions could safeguard trade and investment flows.

Risks and Strategic Considerations:

Erosion of US-Philippines Alliance: The proposal risks undermining the longstanding US-Philippines alliance, which has been a cornerstone of Philippine defense strategy. The US may view this move as a sign of wavering commitment, potentially weakening its support for the Philippines in future disputes.
China’s Unpredictability: China’s track record in the South China Sea suggests that it may not honor such a deal in the long term. Even if it temporarily halts aggressive actions, it could resume them once the Typhon system is removed.
Domestic Backlash: The proposal could face criticism from within the Philippines, particularly from those who view the US as a more reliable partner in countering Chinese aggression.

Marcos’s motivations likely stem from a desire to assert Philippine agency in a region dominated by superpower rivalries. However, the proposal also highlights the Philippines’ precarious position as a smaller state caught between two giants.

The US-Philippines Alliance: A Shifting Foundation?

The US-Philippines alliance has historically been a pillar of regional security, but Marcos’s proposal introduces uncertainty into this relationship. The alliance is rooted in shared history, mutual defense treaties, and strategic interests, but it faces challenges in the context of the South China Sea dispute.

Strategic Importance of the Alliance:

Counterbalancing China: The US views the Philippines as a critical partner in countering China’s growing influence in the region. The Typhon missile system’s deployment underscores this role, serving as a deterrent to Chinese aggression.
Regional Stability: The alliance contributes to maintaining freedom of navigation and upholding international law in the South China Sea, which is vital for global trade.

Implications of Marcos’s Proposal:

Trust Deficit: The US may perceive Marcos’s offer as a sign of wavering loyalty, potentially leading to a recalibration of its commitment to the Philippines.
Strategic Reassessment: The US could respond by strengthening ties with other regional allies, such as Japan or Australia, reducing its reliance on the Philippines as a strategic partner.

The alliance’s future hinges on whether the US and the Philippines can reconcile their differing approaches to China. While the US seeks to contain Chinese influence, the Philippines appears to be exploring a more conciliatory path.

China’s Assertiveness: Motivations and Consequences

China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea is driven by a combination of territorial ambitions, economic interests, and a desire to project power. Its actions have significant implications for regional stability and the Philippines’ strategic choices.

Motivations Behind China’s Actions:

Territorial Claims: China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea are rooted in historical narratives and strategic interests, including control over vital shipping lanes and natural resources.
Power Projection: By asserting dominance in the region, China aims to establish itself as the preeminent power in Asia, challenging US influence.
Economic Interests: The South China Sea is rich in fisheries and potential energy resources, making it a critical area for China’s economic development.

Consequences for Regional Stability:

Escalation of Tensions: China’s aggressive actions, such as harassing Filipino fishermen and coast guard personnel, risk provoking a military confrontation.
Erosion of International Law: China’s disregard for the 2016 arbitral ruling, which invalidated its claims in the South China Sea, undermines the rules-based international order.

China’s approach forces the Philippines to navigate a precarious path between asserting its sovereignty and avoiding direct confrontation with a much more powerful neighbor.

The Game of Geopolitics: Unveiling the Hidden Agendas and Power Plays

The South China Sea dispute is not just about territorial claims; it is a microcosm of broader geopolitical rivalries. Each actor has underlying motivations that shape their actions:

Philippines: Seeks to balance its economic ties with China and its security reliance on the US, while asserting its sovereignty.
US: Aims to maintain its strategic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region and counter China’s rise.
China: Aspires to establish regional hegemony and secure its economic and security interests.

The power dynamics are heavily skewed in favor of the US and China, leaving the Philippines with limited leverage. This imbalance complicates the Philippines’ efforts to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Diplomacy, Deterrence, and Dialogue: A Roadmap for Stability

For the Philippines:

Strengthen multilateral diplomacy by engaging ASEAN and international forums to build a united front against Chinese aggression.
Invest in defense modernization to reduce reliance on external powers and enhance its ability to protect its sovereignty.
Pursue dialogue with China while maintaining a firm stance on its territorial rights.

For the US:

Reaffirm its commitment to the Philippines through tangible support, such as increased military aid and joint exercises.
Avoid overreacting to Marcos’s proposal, recognizing the Philippines’ need to balance its relationships with both superpowers.
Work with regional allies to develop a coordinated strategy for countering Chinese assertiveness.

For China:

Adopt a more conciliatory approach to reduce regional tensions and build trust with neighboring countries.
Respect international law, including the 2016 arbitral ruling, to demonstrate its commitment to a rules-based order.
Engage in genuine dialogue with the Philippines to address mutual concerns and explore cooperative solutions.

Conclusion

In the unforgiving world of geopolitics, survival and sovereignty rarely go hand in hand. President Marcos’s proposal may buy the Philippines time, but at what cost? The South China Sea dispute is not just about territory—it’s about the nation’s place in history. True security will come not from fleeting compromises but from a steadfast commitment to diplomacy, regional unity, and national resolve. The choice before the Philippines is clear: shape its destiny or let others shape it for them.