In 2012, China and the Philippines engaged in a standoff that would alter the course of the status quo in the South China Sea. The Scarborough Shoal incident, marked by China’s assertive actions against Philippine fishing boats and subsequent effective capture of the shoal, set the stage for a significant shift in regional dynamics. This event highlighted the importance of territorial disputes and power struggles in a region where overlapping maritime claims have fueled longstanding tensions among neighboring nations.
Following the Scarborough Shoal standoff, Washington’s stance gradually evolved from ambiguity to specificity. The United States, a longstanding ally of the Philippines, expressed deep concern over China’s actions and issued stern warnings of “severe consequences” should it reclaim Scarborough Shoal. This shift marked a turning point in U.S. engagement with regional disputes, reflecting a more pronounced commitment to upholding international law, freedom of navigation, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the South China Sea.
Times have changed since 2012, and with that, geopolitics in the South China Sea has transformed. The once uneasy peaceful coexistence among nations has given way to a heightened and confrontational environment, where major powers vie for influence and strategic control. The increased militarization of disputed islands, assertive maritime maneuvers, and the pursuit of territorial claims have intensified the complexities of the geopolitical landscape.
Against this backdrop, the question arises: Would the United States come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of a Chinese attack? For this, we’ll analyze historical alliances, tracing the trajectory from the Scarborough Shoal incident in 2012 to the establishment of the Bilateral Defense Guidelines in 2023. This exploration has tracked the evolution of U.S. engagement in the South China Sea, examining the transition from ambiguity to specificity in response to China’s assertive actions.
The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty: An Enduring Commitment
The U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty was signed on August 30, 1951. This treaty, forged during the Cold War era, established a commitment whereby both nations pledged to support each other in the event of an armed attack. The treaty’s language, framed in the context of collective defense, reflected the geopolitical realities of the time and aimed to deter external aggression in the Asia-Pacific region.
The main points of the treaty include
Collective Defense: The core principle of the treaty is collective defense, where both parties commit to supporting each other in the face of an armed attack. It underscores the mutual interest in maintaining peace and security in the Pacific region.
Armed Attack: The treaty defines an armed attack against either party as an attack on both, triggering the obligation to respond. The commitment extends to the metropolitan territory of either party, as well as territories under their jurisdiction in the Pacific region.
Consultation: In the event of an armed attack or the threat of aggression, the treaty emphasizes the importance of immediate consultation between the United States and the Philippines to determine the appropriate response. This reflects the collaborative decision-making process inherent in the alliance.
Joint Defense Commission: The treaty establishes a Joint Defense Commission, composed of military representatives from both nations, tasked with formulating strategic plans and recommending courses of action in the event of an armed attack.
Termination and Duration: The treaty outlines termination provisions, requiring one year’s notice by either party. The initial term of the treaty was set for an indefinite period, with periodic reviews to assess its continued relevance.
Subsequent Agreements: Over the years, both nations have entered into additional agreements and arrangements to supplement the Mutual Defense Treaty, enhancing military cooperation, interoperability, and regional security efforts.
As a cornerstone of U.S.-Philippines relations, the treaty has played a pivotal role in shaping responses to regional security challenges.
Bilateral Defense Guidelines: Reinforcing Commitments in a Shifting Landscape
In May 2023, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin and Philippine Secretary of the Department of National Defense Carlito Galvez took a decisive step to fortify the U.S.-Philippines alliance by establishing the Bilateral Defense Guidelines. This significant development served to reaffirm and clarify the terms under which mutual defense commitments, as outlined in Articles IV and V of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, would be invoked.
The Bilateral Defense Guidelines specifically highlighted that an armed attack in the Pacific, including any incident within the South China Sea, targeting public vessels, aircraft, or armed forces—encompassing Coast Guards—of either nation would trigger the mutual defense obligations stipulated in the treaty.
These guidelines represent a strategic response to the evolving geopolitical dynamics in the South China Sea, where China’s assertive actions have heightened tensions. By explicitly including public vessels, aircraft, and armed forces, including Coast Guards, as triggers for mutual defense commitments, the U.S. and the Philippines address the spectrum of potential scenarios in the contested waters.
Comparative Analysis with Other Historical Alliances
In the realm of historical alliances, the development of these Bilateral Defense Guidelines showcases a contemporary approach to addressing evolving geopolitical challenges:
NATO’s Collective Response: Drawing parallels with NATO’s Article 5, the Bilateral Defense Guidelines share a common objective of providing specificity to alliance commitments. Both agreements underscore the importance of a clear understanding of the circumstances under which collective defense obligations would be activated.
ANZUS Treaty and Consultative Measures: Similar to the ANZUS Treaty, the Bilateral Defense Guidelines prioritize consultation and cooperative efforts. However, the Bilateral Defense Guidelines go a step further by clearly outlining specific scenarios, enhancing the predictability of the alliance’s response.
SEATO’s Regional Focus: In contrast to the now-dissolved SEATO, which faced challenges due to its regional focus, the Bilateral Defense Guidelines address the contemporary realities of security dynamics by explicitly referencing the South China Sea, a hotspot for geopolitical tensions.
The establishment of the Bilateral Defense Guidelines reflects a pragmatic response to the complexities of the modern security landscape. By providing detailed parameters for mutual defense commitments, the U.S. and the Philippines demonstrate a commitment to adapt their alliance to current challenges, ensuring clarity and responsiveness in the face of potential threats. As major powers vie for influence in the South China Sea, these guidelines serve as a testament to the agility required in navigating geopolitical shifts while upholding shared strategic objectives.
Revisiting the Scenario: U.S. “Ironclad” Defense Commitment in 2024
In the hypothetical scenario of a recurrence of the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2024, a pivotal question emerges regarding the nature of the U.S. response. Would the United States, as it did in 2012, opt for strong statements of rebuke or, in the face of escalating tensions, be inclined to take a more forceful stance?
Well, in that case, the statements from U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and President Joe Biden offer insights into a potential U.S. response:
Secretary Blinken’s Commitment: In line with the Bilateral Defense Guidelines established in 2023, Secretary Blinken reiterates the specific conditions under which the U.S. would come to the defense of the Philippines. Any armed attack on public vessels, aircraft, or armed forces, including Coast Guards, in the South China Sea would trigger mutual defense commitments. This commitment encompasses the contested waters, including Scarborough Shoal which depicts direct US confrontation with China.
President Biden’s “Ironclad” Warning: President Biden’s warning to China, emphasizing the “ironclad” nature of the U.S. defense commitment to the Philippines, suggests a readiness to take robust actions to uphold regional stability. This term signifies an unwavering determination to safeguard allies, encompassing potential threats in the South China Sea.
Analysis: A Shift towards Assertive Diplomacy
Deterrence and Regional Stability: The clarity of U.S. commitments, as outlined by Secretary Blinken and President Biden, serves as a deterrence mechanism. By explicitly stating the consequences of any aggressive actions, the U.S. aims to discourage potential escalations, including those around Scarborough Shoal, contributing to regional stability.
Escalation Management through Diplomacy: The hypothetical scenario necessitates a careful evaluation of diplomatic avenues, considering the specific conditions related to the South China Sea.
Global Implications and Alliances: Analyzing the potential confrontation involves considering broader global implications. How the U.S. response, encompassing Scarborough Shoal, aligns with its strategic alliances, the Indo-Pacific balance of power, and the overall global geopolitical landscape becomes critical for political scientists assessing the situation.
Shifts in Geopolitical Dynamics: A hypothetical Scarborough Shoal incident in 2024 would be viewed in the context of evolving geopolitical dynamics, with specific attention to the South China Sea. This potential confrontation aligns with broader trends in U.S. foreign policy, its stance on regional security, and the changing power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific.
Recent Incidents in the South China Sea
In recent events unfolding in the South China Sea, incidents involving China and the Philippines have brought forth a contrast in responses, shedding light on the role of diplomatic efforts and China’s perspective on U.S. involvement.
Collision Incidents: The Philippines has reported “dangerous maneuvers” by China, resulting in collisions between a China Coast Guard ship and a Filipino supply boat within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Another incident involved a Chinese militia boat allegedly “bumping” a Philippine Coast Guard vessel. The Philippines’ Defense Minister accused China of intentionally hitting Philippine vessels.
U.S. Statements: President Joe Biden and his administration have echoed the Philippines’ claims, stating that the Chinese vessels “acted dangerously and unlawfully.” This alignment reflects a shared concern about the escalation of tensions in the South China Sea.
Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Position: Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning rebuffed U.S. involvement, asserting that the U.S. had “no right to get involved in a problem between China and the Philippines.” She emphasized that, should the U.S. defend the Philippines, its actions “must not hurt China’s sovereignty and maritime interests in the South China Sea.”
U.S. Restraint Despite Incidents
Threshold for Involvement: Notably, despite the reported incidents and the alignment of statements, the U.S. has not directly intervened. This suggests that the threshold for U.S. involvement might be higher than explicitly stated in public statements by U.S. officials.
Caution in Escalation: The restrained U.S. approach underscores a cautious stance, potentially indicating a preference for diplomatic avenues or a carefully calibrated response. This nuance adds complexity to understanding the practical implications of U.S. commitments in the South China Sea.
China-Philippines Relations Under New Leadership
Strategic Shift: Since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assumed office in June 2022, the Philippines has adopted a more assertive stance against China’s actions in the South China Sea. This marks a strategic shift from the previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte, indicating renewed collaboration with the U.S.
U.S.-Philippines Alliance: The Philippines, a crucial U.S. strategic ally, borders potential flashpoints in the Pacific. President Marcos’ alignment with the U.S. contrasts with Duterte’s pro-China stance. The current incidents reflect the evolving dynamics under the renewed U.S.-Philippines alliance.
China’s Perspective: China’s response to the incidents reflects its longstanding position on sovereignty and non-interference. The Chinese spokesperson’s assertion underscores China’s sensitivity to external involvement, particularly from the U.S., in regional disputes.
Economic and Trade Implications of South China Sea Tensions
The South China Sea (SCS), a crucial maritime route handling approximately one-third of global shipping, is embroiled in tensions with significant economic and trade implications. The evolving dynamics in the region, particularly in the event of a conflict, would reverberate across the economies of China, the Philippines, the United States, and the broader global trade landscape.
China’s Economic Vulnerability in Conflict: China’s heavy reliance on maritime trade, with over 60% of its trade-in value traversing the SCS, exposes its economic vulnerability in the event of heightened tensions or conflict. The pursuit of assertive actions, including seismic surveys in contested areas, may amplify economic risks. In the scenario of conflict, China could face disruptions in trade routes, impacting its export-dependent economy and causing diplomatic and economic isolation.
Philippines: Economic Toll and Agricultural Deficits: The Philippines, already grappling with economic challenges due to China’s actions, would face exacerbated consequences in a conflict scenario. Interruptions to fishing and petroleum exploration activities, coupled with restrictions on Filipino fishing, could intensify. The trade deficit of US$661 million in agriculture with China in 2022 could escalate, adding to the economic strain on the Philippines.
U.S.: Balancing Security Concerns and Economic Interests: The United States, with a relatively lower reliance on the SCS for maritime trade, would still navigate a delicate balance between security concerns and economic interests. Increased military exercises and deployments in the region signal a strategic commitment, but a full-scale conflict would introduce economic considerations. Disruptions in global shipping routes could impact U.S. trade, necessitating a nuanced approach to maintain equilibrium.
Global Trade Disruptions: The SCS’s role as a vital trade artery for major economies makes it susceptible to disruptions in the event of conflict. Rerouting shipping from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa to Asia and the U.S. West Coast would lead to increased shipping costs and reductions in economic activity worldwide. A military conflict would escalate these disruptions, underscoring the interconnectedness of global trade routes and the potential for widespread economic consequences.
Diplomatic Solutions and Conflict Resolution
Addressing the South China Sea dispute involving the Philippines, China, and the broader ASEAN region necessitates a multifaceted approach, with several diplomatic solutions and conflict resolution strategies already in motion:
Code of Conduct:
The Philippines has been proactive in advocating for a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. This proposed framework aims to establish guidelines for the behavior of nations operating in the disputed waters, with the overarching goal of preventing conflicts. The development and adherence to such a code could provide a structured basis for managing tensions and fostering stability in the region.
Regional Cooperation:
Recognizing the collective nature of the challenges in the South China Sea, the Philippines has engaged with its Southeast Asian neighbors to discuss and potentially implement a distinct code of conduct for the region. This collaborative approach seeks to unite allies in a shared commitment to maintaining peace. By fostering regional cooperation, nations can collectively address concerns and work towards long-term stability in the South China Sea.
Bilateral Agreements:
In a bilateral effort, the Philippines and China have taken steps to manage maritime disputes directly. Both nations have reached agreements to restart joint oil and gas exploration, signaling a commitment to finding common ground on economic activities in the South China Sea. Additionally, the establishment of a direct communication channel on South China Sea issues demonstrates a willingness to engage in dialogue and manage potential conflicts through diplomatic means.
US Involvement as a Deterrent Power
The United States plays a crucial role in preventing military escalation resulting from the territorial dispute. Washington’s defense treaty with Manila could draw the United States into a potential conflict between China and the Philippines over the disputed territories. This deterrence factor emphasizes the importance of diplomatic resolutions and reinforces the commitment of the international community, particularly the U.S., to regional stability.
Furthermore, the United States has escalated its military presence in the region, contributing to a deterrence strategy aimed at preventing any aggressive actions. This increased presence serves as a clear signal of the U.S. commitment to maintaining peace and security in the South China Sea.
These diplomatic solutions, coupled with the active involvement of the United States as a deterrent force, reflect a comprehensive effort to de-escalate tensions, prevent conflicts, and foster stability in the South China Sea. Continued collaboration and diplomatic engagements are imperative for building trust and ensuring the long-term security and prosperity of the nations involved in the region.
Conclusion
In the ever-evolving landscape of the South China Sea, characterized by historical tensions and recent escalations, diplomatic solutions emerge as the linchpin for stability. The Scarborough Shoal incident in 2012 marked a turning point, prompting a recalibration of alliances, particularly with the United States adopting a more assertive stance. Diplomacy, embodied by the advocacy for a Code of Conduct, regional collaboration, and bilateral agreements, becomes paramount in managing disputes and fostering lasting peace. The U.S., positioned as a deterrent force, reinforces its commitment to preventing conflicts, underlining the significance of diplomatic channels in navigating complex geopolitical dynamics.
Recent incidents underscore the delicate dance of diplomacy, with the U.S. and the Philippines expressing concern over reported Chinese aggression. The cautious U.S. approach suggests a nuanced interpretation of commitments, emphasizing ongoing diplomatic efforts to avoid escalation. As economic implications reverberate globally, the delicate balance between security concerns and economic interests underscores the imperative for sustained diplomatic endeavors. In conclusion, a commitment to diplomatic solutions remains pivotal for ensuring the security, prosperity, and equilibrium of nations entangled in the intricate web of the South China Sea.
