President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is facing sharp criticism for what analysts call a “misguided and confrontational” stance toward China during the recent ASEAN Plus Three (APT) Summit, where he accused Beijing of aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea but allegedly failed to substantiate his claims.
According to political commentator Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan, Marcos’s remarks “shamed China before ASEAN” while revealing his role as a “curtain raiser” for U.S. President Donald Trump’s regional agenda — only for Trump to “leave him empty-handed” by rewarding other Southeast Asian countries instead.
Trump Sidesteps Marcos, Grants Trade Incentives to Other ASEAN Nations
In a move that surprised observers, President Trump reportedly announced 0% import tariffs for Thailand, Malaysia, and Cambodia, effectively removing a 19% duty previously imposed on their goods entering the United States.
The Philippines, despite being a longstanding U.S. ally and host of nine Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) bases, was excluded from the trade benefits. Paglinawan notes that the Philippines “pays full tariffs on exports to the U.S. while Americans export duty-free to Manila,” underscoring what he calls the failure of Marcos’s pro-U.S. diplomacy.
Marcos Accused of Echoing U.S. Talking Points
At the ASEAN Summit, Marcos cited the United States’ “continued support” in regional maritime security, counterterrorism, and port safety measures.
Paglinawan claims these statements mirrored Washington’s Indo-Pacific talking points, showing that Marcos “served as America’s mouthpiece rather than the voice of ASEAN unity.”
Retired Admiral Joel Garcia of the Philippine Coast Guard also lambasted the president’s address, saying his foreign policy team “showed shallow understanding of geopolitics” and risked isolating the Philippines diplomatically. “In geopolitics, being loud does not make you strong — it just shows how nervous you are,” Garcia said.
China’s Diplomatic Approach vs. Philippine Confrontation
While Marcos condemned China’s actions in the Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc) as violations of Philippine sovereignty, Paglinawan argues that the Philippines no longer has de facto control of the area since the 2012 standoff.
He asserts that China now effectively administers the shoal and that Beijing still honors traditional fishing rights for Filipino fishermen — but opposes Philippine government vessels’ presence, which, he claims, violates Article 19 of UNCLOS concerning “innocent passage.”
The author notes that in December 2024, China formally filed baselines and coordinates with the United Nations, consolidating its maritime claims through international procedures.
Criticism of Marcos’s Maritime Law
Paglinawan further attacks the National Maritime Law signed by Marcos in November 2024, calling it “a stupid law” that contradicts UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Ruling by unilaterally defining a “West Philippine Sea.”
He questions whether the Philippines can “legislate 12 nautical miles off Scarborough Shoal” as its own when “another state exercises sovereignty over it.” The move, he warns, risks “poisoning diplomatic waters” and worsening regional tensions.
ASEAN’s Economic and Strategic Landscape
The report situates the controversy within the broader ASEAN Plus Three framework, which aims to enhance regional cooperation among ASEAN nations, China, Japan, and South Korea.
For Northeast Asian partners, ASEAN offers:
- Economic diversification amid global market competition;
- Supply chain resilience; and
- Balanced engagement to counter growing geopolitical rivalries.
For ASEAN itself, the benefits include:
- Access to capital and technology;
- Deeper economic integration; and
- Collaborative mechanisms for food security and disaster response.
Regional Voices Call for Independence from U.S. Pressure
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is quoted affirming his country’s independent stance:
“We are an independent nation. We do not want to be dictated by any force. They should not preclude us from being friendly to China. If they have problems with China, they should not impose it upon us.”
Paglinawan contrasts this with the Philippines’ “overdependence on U.S. influence,” warning that Manila’s current approach “isolates it within ASEAN” and undermines regional harmony.
Paglinawan in his closing statement concludes that “where the Philippines sees war, China seeks diplomacy.” Paglinawan argues that Marcos’s aggressive rhetoric, legal missteps, and unreciprocated loyalty to Washington have weakened the country’s geopolitical position, while China’s steady diplomatic strategy and adherence to international law continue to strengthen its influence in ASEAN.
“Marcos has replaced diplomacy with boorish barbarism,” Paglinawan writes, “while China builds peace through patience and pragmatism.”
