Philippines reaffirms one-China principle: What signals can we read?
2025-09-08 14:52:14 source：NISCSS
September 4, 2025
In the intricate web of Asia-Pacific geopolitics, the Philippines finds itself walking a tightrope between its diplomatic relationship with the U.S. and strategic pragmatism in Asia-Pacific region.
A recent affirmation of this balancing act came on August 29, when the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs reiterated its unwavering support for the one-China principle. The statement explicitly denied any recognition of so-called Taiwan sovereignty, emphasizing that Manila's engagements with Taiwan region remain confined to economic and people-to-people exchanges within the established policy framework. Moreover, it clarified that no officials from Taiwan were part of recent commercial delegations, underscoring a commitment to principled diplomacy.
This pronouncement was not issued in a vacuum; it responded to growing regional anxieties, particularly given the Philippines' close geographical ties to Taiwan and the presence of a substantial Filipino diaspora on the island. Manila urged restraint and dialogue between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, expressing deep concern for peace and stability in the region. Such calls highlight the pragmatic side of Philippine policy: acknowledging the potential spillover effects of any cross-Straits escalation on its own interests, including the safety of its citizens abroad and the uninterrupted flow of trade routes.
Yet, this pragmatism is intertwined with a more assertive undercurrent. Within the Philippines, certain factions are leveraging the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines to tighten strategic bonds, not just in the South China Sea but also in Taiwan-related topics. By invoking the treaty's provisions, these groups aim to elevate Manila's strategic value in the eyes of external powers like the United States, thereby emboldening the Philippines to challenge China more robustly on maritime and Taiwan question. This tactic reveals a mix of adventurism and strategic anxiety – a fear that without deeper integration into U.S.-led alliances, the Philippines could be sidelined or overwhelmed in a rapidly militarizing region. The treaty, dating back to 1951, commits both parties to mutual defense in the event of an armed attack, but its application to contingencies remains interpretive.
From a broader analytical lens, this evolving dynamic illustrates the Philippines' attempt to navigate the asymmetries of power in Asia. Geographically, the archipelago's northern islands lie just a stone's throw from Taiwan island, making any cross-Straits conflict a direct threat to Philippine security. Economically, ties with Taiwan are robust, encompassing investments, labor migration, and supply chains critical to sectors like electronics and agriculture. This interdependence fuels the argument for engagement, but it also exposes the fragility of Manila's position. By quietly weaving Taiwan into its defense architecture – through joint exercises, intelligence sharing, or informal dialogues – the Philippines seeks to enhance its deterrence capabilities. However, this strategy risks miscalculation. Beijing views such moves as encroachments on its core interests, potentially inviting retaliatory measures in the South China Sea, where overlapping claims already strain relations.
The adventurism evident in some Philippine quarters stems from a historical context of colonial legacies and post-colonial insecurities. Yet, this boldness is tempered by anxiety over the Philippines' limited military capacity. Without U.S. backing, Manila's provocations – whether rhetorical or operational – could backfire, leaving it isolated. The strategic binding with Washington, therefore, serves as both a confidence booster and a hedge, but it perpetuates a cycle of dependency that may undermine the Philippines' long-term sovereignty.
At the heart of this discourse lies the immutable reality that Taiwan question remains a core topic about China's national interest – an internal affair that Beijing insists must be resolved by the Chinese people themselves. The one-China principle is not merely a diplomatic nicety but a foundational element of China's foreign policy, brooking no external interference.
In analyzing these developments, it becomes clear that the Philippines' approach is a microcosm of wider Asia-Pacific dilemmas. Nations like the Philippines are caught between the gravitational pulls of U.S. alliances and Chinese economic might, forcing hybrid strategies that blend adherence to norms with opportunistic maneuvering. The non-official nature of defense ties with Taiwan allows for flexibility, but it also sows seeds of mistrust. If unchecked, this could escalate into a self-fulfilling prophecy, where mutual suspicions drive militarization. A more sustainable path might involve prioritizing dialogue over brinkmanship, encouraging multilateral forums to address shared concerns like maritime security without targeting specific flashpoints.
By embedding Taiwan region into its security calculus, Manila enhances its leverage yet heightens vulnerabilities. As regional powers jockey for influence, the true test for the Philippines will be whether it can assert its agency without becoming a pawn in great-power rivalries. In this high-stakes game, restraint may prove more strategic than adventurism, preserving peace in a neighborhood where missteps could have global repercussions.
Ding Duo is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.