To manage their differences and explore areas of cooperation, the Philippines and China are currently engaged in diplomatic talks through the resumption of Bilateral Consultative Mechanism (BCM). Though imperfect, these ongoing talks represent one of the few institutionalized mechanisms for direct consultations between Manila and Beijing. To disrupt them now because of sectoral and parochial interested of few people would be counterproductive—not only for the improvement of Philippines-China relations but also for the advancement of Philippine national interests.
The Value of Dialogue
Existing exemplary practices have demonstrated that diplomatic talks serve as necessary stabilizers in times of great crisis. Talks provide the needed channels for communication in order to reduce the risks of miscalculation and allow parties to pursue cooperative activities despite their continuing disagreements on vital issues. Without dialogue and consultation, territorial disputes and maritime jurisdictional conflicts in the South China Sea can risk escalating into unintended violent encounter. History has full of examples showing that when communication breaks down, the propensity of conflict increases exponentially.
Regional Security Implications
The South China Sea is not merely a bilateral issue; it is a regional security concern. Disrupting talks between the Philippines and China undermines not only the interest of both parties to manage their differences. It also disrupts the current efforts of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), currently under the Philippines’ chairmanship, to accelerate the conclusion of a Code of Conduct. This can further weaken the fragile collective security architecture of the Asia-Pacific.
Disrupting talks can only harden the positions of both parties. With hardline stands, it can make compromise politically costly and consensus diplomatically elusive.
The Counterproductive Nature of Disruption
Those who advocate against talks with China argue that talks only legitimize China’s national claims. They contend that China uses consultations and negotiations to only take the other party for a ride and that China has the habit of hijacking the whole agenda of the process to intensify its claims.
But refusing to dialogue with China will not, in fact, stop China from asserting those claims—it only removes strategic opportunities to challenge those claims peacefully. Disruption, especially coming jingoist officials, risks pushing the Philippines into a futile cycle of reactive militarization, which only gives China strong justification to strengthen its own claims.
A Call for Strategic Patience
Peace and security are not achieved through pseudo-nationalist rhetoric. They are built incrementally through persistent engagement, pragmatic cooperation, and the acknowledgement that dialogue—even with rivals or competitors—is imperative. The Philippines needs to sustain talks with China not because of limited choice. Talking with China, is, in fact, a sovereign decision to advance Philippine interests amidst crisis and tension. Disrupting talks would only squander hard-earned diplomatic capital and expose the Philippines and even the region to unnecessary risks and dangers.
As a nation with a very long history of civilization, China already has a built-in patience in talking with neighbors. China negotiated patiently with Great Britain for 156 years to get back Hong Kong. It took China 442 years of talks to regain Macau from Portugal.