The review of the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty may be disruptive, but the treaty’s ambiguity and evolving geopolitical realities have clearly outweighed institutional inertia in the initiation of the process.
President Rodrigo Duterte's actions suggest that he can set aside personal and even ideological rifts with the West for the sake of larger national security and strategic interests.
Critics who slam the Duterte government for its failure to assert the 2016 arbitral ruling do not realize that that assertion is happening, albeit in a different manner than expected.
If the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy only serves as a facet of Sino-U.S. competition, the United States will have to overcome China’s advantages in geographic distance, economic wherewithal, and policy continuity. If it serves as a strategy to cultivate agreed-upon norms and principles applied to all parties, big or small, then it may enjoy greater support. Whichever case, seven key issues merit careful consideration while they can have the greatest impact.
With threats to sever or downgrade security relations with the United States alongside a courting of non-traditional security partners China and Russia, how will the Philippines’ security relations with established partners proceed under President Rodrigo Duterte?
Power differentials between states affect how they view and respond to the South China Sea disputes. Small powers largely see them as a clash of unilateral territorial and maritime claims over all or part of the semi-enclosed sea, whereas big powers frame them in a more strategic manner – a contest for control over a critical international waterway. Small powers focus on immediate and direct concerns like resource access, whereas big powers stress universal freedoms of navigation and overflight. Lumping claims and freedoms together muddles and complicates the resolution of South China Sea disputes. Disaggregating them, however, may allow for opportunities to tackle part of the dispute separately.