“How do you stand firm against a giant in your backyard?” This is the question facing the Philippines as it confronts China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea. In a region where fishing boats are shadowed by warships, and reefs transform into military bases overnight, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Against this backdrop, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an urgent call to his Philippine counterpart, Gilberto Teodoro Jr., reaffirming Washington’s “ironclad” commitment to their mutual defense treaty.
The call wasn’t just diplomacy—it was a lifeline in a region where power plays often dictate survival. Together, they discussed strategies to rebuild deterrence and strengthen the Philippine military, signaling that the South China Sea is no longer just a geopolitical chessboard—it’s a litmus test for alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
“It started with a water cannon and a flash of green light.” In August, a Chinese coast guard vessel blocked a Philippine resupply mission in the South China Sea, deploying military-grade lasers to temporarily blind Filipino sailors. This aggressive encounter—one of many—underscored Beijing’s growing audacity in asserting control over disputed waters, sparking alarm in Manila and beyond. The South China Sea, a vital corridor for global trade and a treasure trove of resources, has become a volatile flashpoint, pitting smaller nations like the Philippines against China’s sweeping territorial claims.
To counter this, the Philippines has turned to its allies, with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterating Washington’s “ironclad” commitment to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty during a critical call with Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. The conversation centered on reestablishing deterrence, strengthening military capabilities, and ensuring the Indo-Pacific remains free and open. Against this backdrop, the Philippines, along with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, conducted joint maritime drills in its exclusive economic zone—boldly demonstrating a united front. But as tensions escalate, one question looms large: How far are these alliances willing to go to uphold the rules-based order in the South China Sea?
The Hegseth Interview: Contextualizing His Views on Deterrence
Pete Hegseth, a seasoned political commentator and Fox News host, isn’t just a talking head; he’s a former U.S. Army officer with firsthand experience in the complexities of modern warfare. Known for his unapologetically direct takes, Hegseth has a sharp focus on national security, and in a recent interview, he turned his attention to the South China Sea—a region he describes as “the epicenter of 21st-century power struggles.” His insights come at a time when the stakes in the Indo-Pacific have never been higher.
At the core of Hegseth’s argument is the concept of deterrence, which he frames as both a strategy and a necessity. For him, the U.S. cannot afford to take a reactive stance in the South China Sea. Instead, he advocates for a proactive approach: bolstering military alliances, ramping up joint exercises with nations like the Philippines, and increasing the visibility of the U.S. naval presence in disputed waters. “Deterrence isn’t about waiting for conflict—it’s about ensuring it never happens,” he stated, underscoring the need for constant vigilance and readiness.
But Hegseth doesn’t stop at military measures. He also calls for leveraging economic tools to counter China’s influence, such as enhancing trade partnerships with Indo-Pacific nations and supporting infrastructure investments that bypass Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. “A strong economy underpins a strong defense,” Hegseth remarked, highlighting that building resilience in the region requires more than just battleships and fighter jets.
For Hegseth, the message is clear: without a robust strategy that combines military, economic, and diplomatic efforts, the U.S. risks losing not just its influence in the South China Sea but its standing as a global leader. As he put it, “Deterrence isn’t just a policy—it’s a commitment to allies, a signal to adversaries, and a promise to future generations that freedom will prevail.”
Defining “Deterrence”: A Pillar of International Relations
In international relations, deterrence refers to the strategy of preventing adversaries from taking unwanted actions—often through the threat of consequences that outweigh potential gains. Rooted in the Cold War era, the concept revolves around one key principle: credibility. For deterrence to work, nations must demonstrate the capability and resolve to follow through on their threats.
Deterrence comes in various forms. Military deterrence involves maintaining a formidable defense posture, including troop presence, advanced weaponry, and readiness for conflict. Economic deterrence leverages trade policies, sanctions, or financial incentives to influence adversarial behavior. Meanwhile, diplomatic deterrence relies on alliances, international agreements, and global institutions to isolate or pressure opposing states.
Pete Hegseth’s perspective emphasizes military deterrence in the South China Sea. He argues for a heightened U.S. presence, including more frequent naval patrols and joint military exercises with allies like the Philippines. For Hegseth, showing strength and preparedness in contested waters is the only way to counter Beijing’s aggressive tactics. However, he doesn’t discount the complementary roles of economic and diplomatic measures, framing them as secondary but essential pillars of a broader deterrence strategy.
Expert Opinions on Deterrence in the South China Sea
Security analysts and international relations experts are divided on the effectiveness of deterrence in the South China Sea. Dr. Graham Allison, a leading scholar of international relations, argues that deterrence is vital but must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended escalation. He supports the idea of increased U.S. naval operations but warns that over-militarizing the region could provoke China into more aggressive actions, potentially destabilizing the Indo-Pacific further.
In contrast, Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro, a China expert, contends that military deterrence alone may not suffice. She emphasizes the need for economic and technological deterrence, such as limiting China’s access to critical technologies and supporting regional trade agreements that exclude Beijing. This approach aligns with the broader U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy but diverges slightly from Hegseth’s military-first focus.
Interestingly, both analysts agree with Hegseth’s point on credibility: deterrence is only effective if U.S. allies, especially the Philippines, believe in Washington’s commitment. The recent joint maritime drills involving the U.S., Japan, Australia, and the Philippines were a step in this direction, sending a unified message to Beijing.
Case Study: U.S. Approach to the Taiwan Strait vs. South China Sea
The U.S. employs distinct strategies in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, shaped by their geopolitical contexts. In the Taiwan Strait, U.S. policy emphasizes strategic ambiguity—deliberately keeping its response to a potential Chinese invasion unclear. This approach, combined with robust military aid to Taiwan and a strong naval presence, aims to deter Beijing without crossing the line into provocation. Frequent arms sales, including advanced missile systems and fighter jets, demonstrate Washington’s commitment to Taiwan’s defense.
Conversely, the South China Sea sees a more collaborative and alliance-driven strategy. Here, the U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and joint military exercises with allies to challenge China’s sweeping territorial claims. Unlike the Taiwan Strait, the focus in the South China Sea is on maintaining a rules-based international order rather than defending a specific partner.
The difference lies in the stakes. Taiwan represents a clear red line for both Beijing and Washington, given its strategic importance and democratic identity. In the South China Sea, the U.S. faces a broader challenge: countering China’s incremental advances without alienating regional allies or risking open conflict. As a result, deterrence in the South China Sea leans more heavily on partnerships and coalition-building, whereas in the Taiwan Strait, it revolves around direct military support and readiness.
Hegseth’s emphasis on deterrence underscores the urgency of maintaining stability in a region where the balance of power is shifting rapidly. While experts may debate the best approach—military, economic, or diplomatic—the consensus is clear: the U.S. cannot afford to step back from its leadership role in the Indo-Pacific. Whether in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, the effectiveness of deterrence will depend on credibility, coordination with allies, and the ability to adapt to a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.
The Philippines’ Position and Actions
A. President Marcos’ Pledge: A Firm Stand Amid Rising Tensions
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has made it unequivocally clear that the Philippines will not yield its territorial claims in the South China Sea. “We will just continue to defend our sovereign territory and our territorial rights in the EEZ,” Marcos recently stated, underscoring his administration’s commitment to safeguarding national sovereignty. This declaration comes amid increasing reports of Chinese vessels harassing Filipino fishermen and violating the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Marcos’ pledge is significant as it signals a more assertive stance compared to previous administrations. By emphasizing the continuous defense of the country’s 200-nautical-mile EEZ, Marcos aims to reassure both domestic and international stakeholders of the Philippines’ resolve. This pledge also supports the nation’s alignment with allies like the United States, demonstrating Manila’s readiness to act as a key player in maintaining a rules-based order in the South China Sea.
B. Philippines’ Military Capabilities and Strategy: Navigating Limited Resources
Despite its strategic location and long coastline, the Philippines has historically faced challenges in modernizing its military. For 2024, the country’s defense budget stands at approximately $4.8 billion, a modest figure compared to neighboring nations like Indonesia and Vietnam. This budget includes funds for acquiring naval assets, enhancing air defense systems, and modernizing its Coast Guard fleet.
Military Resources:
Navy: The Philippine Navy operates a mix of aging and newly acquired vessels, including guided-missile frigates like the BRP Jose Rizal. However, it lacks submarines or a robust fleet to fully monitor the vast South China Sea. Air Force: The Philippine Air Force has begun incorporating multi-role fighters, but its capabilities remain limited compared to China’s advanced air fleet. Coast Guard: The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) has emerged as a frontline defender in the South China Sea, receiving investments in patrol ships and surveillance equipment.
Strategy:
The Philippines is increasingly relying on alliances to bolster its defense posture. Under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the United States, the Philippines has granted access to key military bases, enabling faster deployment of U.S. forces if tensions escalate. Additionally, joint drills with allies like Japan and Australia aim to enhance interoperability and strengthen maritime defense. Domestically, the government is focusing on modernizing the PCG to address gray-zone tactics employed by China, such as deploying maritime militias and coast guard vessels to assert territorial claims without direct military confrontation.
C. Public Opinion in the Philippines: Unity Amid Challenges
Filipino public opinion reflects widespread concern over Chinese actions in the South China Sea. A 2024 survey by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) found that 89% of Filipinos believe the government should assert its rights in the disputed waters, even if it leads to heightened tensions with China. This strong sentiment stems from repeated incidents of Chinese aggression, including the use of water cannons against Filipino vessels and the militarization of disputed features like Mischief Reef.
Filipinos largely support diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute, but there is growing recognition that stronger alliances and a credible defense strategy are necessary to counter Beijing’s actions. At the same time, there is skepticism about relying too heavily on the United States. While many Filipinos view the U.S. as a key ally, some worry about becoming overly dependent on foreign powers, advocating instead for a balanced approach that combines self-reliance with strategic partnerships.
Multilateral Drills and Regional Alliances
The recent joint maritime drills involving the United States, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines in the South China Sea underline a clear shift in regional security dynamics. Conducted within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), these exercises were designed to improve the interoperability of participating forces and demonstrate their shared commitment to a rules-based maritime order. The drills included advanced naval maneuvers, search-and-rescue operations, and maritime surveillance activities. With destroyers, frigates, patrol vessels, and unmanned aerial systems in play, the exercises showcased the increasing sophistication and coordination among these allies.
These drills send a strong message to China and the broader international community. By conducting such operations in contested waters, the participating nations signal their willingness to defend freedom of navigation and uphold international law. Notably, the involvement of Japan and Australia—countries without direct territorial claims in the South China Sea—highlights the global importance of the dispute, reframing it as a matter of international security rather than just a regional issue. Regional alliances have also grown stronger in response to China’s assertive behavior.
The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), dating back to 1951, has become even more critical, with expanded military cooperation under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This provides the U.S. with access to strategic Philippine bases, allowing for rapid deployment of forces in the event of a crisis. Partnerships with Japan and Australia have deepened, with Japan pledging maritime patrol vessels and Australia signing a strategic partnership agreement with Manila.
Together, these alliances enhance the Philippines’ ability to counter Chinese aggression while promoting collective deterrence in the region. These alliances are not without complications. While they bolster the Philippines’ security, they also risk escalating tensions with China, which views such collaborations as a direct threat. Balancing these partnerships while maintaining ASEAN unity and avoiding over-reliance on the United States remains a delicate challenge for Manila.
Experts hold differing views on the effectiveness of these alliances. Dr. Richard Heydarian, a renowned political analyst, argues that stronger partnerships with like-minded nations are essential for the Philippines to protect its sovereignty and assert its maritime claims. He highlights how collective action strengthens deterrence and reinforces the Philippines’ bargaining position in negotiations with China.
On the other hand, Professor Graham Allison of Harvard warns that while alliances deter aggression, they can also exacerbate tensions. The growing presence of allied forces in contested waters may provoke further military responses from China, heightening the risk of unintended conflict. Balancing deterrence with diplomacy, experts suggest, will be key to ensuring that these alliances promote stability rather than fueling escalation in the South China Sea.
China’s Perspective and Actions
China’s claims over the South China Sea are rooted in its so-called “Nine-Dash Line,” a vague demarcation encompassing nearly 90% of the sea. Beijing asserts historical rights to the area, referencing ancient maps and historical accounts. However, these claims were invalidated in 2016 when an international arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating that China’s claims had no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Despite this, China continues to assert its dominance through activities such as constructing artificial islands, deploying naval forces, and sending massive fishing fleets, often escorted by armed militia vessels.
China’s recent activities highlight its resolve. The militarization of artificial islands—complete with airstrips, radar systems, and missile batteries—has turned these outposts into forward bases for projecting power across the region. Chinese coast guard ships have also been accused of aggressive maneuvers, including the use of water cannons and military-grade lasers against Filipino vessels. These actions illustrate China’s strategy of incremental gains, often described as “gray zone” tactics, to avoid outright conflict while steadily consolidating control.
Beijing’s reaction to multilateral drills involving the US, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines has been predictably sharp. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning described these exercises as “provocative” and accused participating nations of undermining regional peace. An editorial in the state-run Global Times claimed that such activities “escalate tensions and destabilize the region.” China has responded by increasing its own military presence, including live-fire naval exercises in disputed areas, to showcase its resolve and dissuade further allied cooperation.
Experts offer varied insights into China’s strategy. Oriana Skylar Mastro, a scholar on Chinese military affairs, suggests that Beijing’s actions are part of a long-term plan to establish dominance over the South China Sea, driven by the region’s strategic and economic value. “For China, control of the South China Sea isn’t just about resources or trade—it’s about asserting its role as a regional hegemon,” she explains. Others, like Professor Zhu Feng of Nanjing University, argue that China’s assertiveness is partly defensive, a reaction to what it perceives as encirclement by US-led alliances.
Potential for Conflict and Future Outlook
The South China Sea remains a powder keg, with several potential triggers for conflict. Accidents at sea, such as collisions between naval or coast guard vessels, are a constant risk. Miscalculations—whether a fishing boat crossing a boundary or an overly aggressive maneuver by a patrol ship—could rapidly escalate into a broader confrontation. Assertive actions, such as China’s harassment of Filipino resupply missions, further heighten the chances of a flashpoint. Despite these risks, diplomatic efforts continue.
Platforms like ASEAN’s Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and ongoing negotiations for a Code of Conduct (COC) offer avenues for dialogue. However, these mechanisms have been criticized for their lack of enforceability and slow progress. Bilateral talks, such as those between the Philippines and China, also provide opportunities for de-escalation but often yield limited results.
Security analysts offer mixed predictions on the likelihood of conflict. Bonnie Glaser, an expert on Asia-Pacific security, warns, “The more militarized the South China Sea becomes, the greater the chance of an unintended conflict.” Yet, others like Euan Graham of the International Institute for Strategic Studies believe that all parties, including China, have too much to lose from open warfare and will likely stick to brinkmanship rather than outright aggression.
Conclusion
The South China Sea dispute reflects a complex interplay of history, sovereignty, strategic ambitions, and international law. As China continues to assert its claims, countries like the Philippines are leaning on alliances and deterrence to safeguard their rights. The region faces immense challenges, from rising militarization to the difficulty of forging meaningful agreements. However, opportunities for stability remain.
Strengthening multilateral cooperation, coupled with innovative diplomatic strategies, could prevent escalation. The future of the South China Sea will not only shape regional security but also influence the broader dynamics of global power competition. As tensions persist, one question lingers: Will the region find a path to peaceful coexistence, or is it destined to become the next flashpoint in the struggle for global dominance?
