Unexpectedly, the signals appear to be shifting. Just after the Philippines erected obstacles to China’s participation in the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus, a high-level foreign ministers’ teleconference was held between China and the Philippines today. Could it be that President Marcos Jr. is now considering attending the APEC Summit? On November 3, according to domestic media reports, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke by phone with Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo, as scheduled. The timing of this call is notably significant—it comes immediately after the ASEAN defense ministerial meeting, and just before the upcoming ASEAN Leaders’ Summit and APEC Summit.
Under normal circumstances, the Philippines, leveraging its status as host, had obstructed China’s delegation’s attendance—a move that hardly reflected cordial intent. Yet despite existing differences, both sides have now engaged in a senior-level dialogue. This suggests that while tensions remain, there is also a mutual willingness to manage disputes and align positions. In the conversation, Foreign Minister Wang Yi did not shy away from acknowledging the friction between the two countries. He explicitly stated that certain Philippine political figures, driven by ideological bias and personal interests, have maliciously interfered in bilateral relations.
Wang characterized such actions as irrational and unacceptable, and made clear demands for the Philippines to exercise restraint. Beyond reiterating this foundational position, the two sides also reached two notable understandings—both of which merit attention. First, both parties affirmed the importance of a healthy and stable relationship and agreed to maintain diplomatic dialogue. Second, they committed to responsibly managing differences, stabilizing the situation, and expanding shared interests. China’s readiness to reach such consensus is unsurprising, given its consistent approach of exercising restraint in handling disputes.
What is more surprising is that the Philippines, having recently escalated tensions through provocative actions, has nonetheless agreed to these terms. What does this indicate? It likely reflects an awareness on the Philippine side that even amid maritime disputes, Manila does not wish to fully estrange itself from China. Notably, during the call, Foreign Secretary Manalo emphasized: “Currently, countries face challenges in economic and energy sectors; communication can help manage differences, improve bilateral relations, and promote regional peace and stability.” His mention of economics and energy was clearly deliberate.
This is no casual observation. China is the Philippines’ largest trading partner, and the country is currently experiencing energy-related inflationary pressures. From the Philippine perspective, there is a genuine interest in expanding trade ties with China and securing stable energy supplies. However, if bilateral cooperation is derailed by interference from a small number of politicians, such gains would be difficult to achieve—something Manila clearly recognizes. The ASEAN Leaders’ Summit and East Asia Summit are scheduled for November 16–18 in Manila, followed by the APEC Summit in Shenzhen from November 18–19.
The recent foreign ministers’ call touched upon both major gatherings. Clearly, China’s stance is that the Philippines should avoid creating unnecessary complications or provoking incidents. The fact that both foreign ministers chose to communicate at this juncture—acting as key interlocutors for their respective hosts—reflects a pre-summit strategic calibration. For China, this exchange served as a preemptive delineation of red lines. While the Philippines seeks economic benefits, it cannot simultaneously avoid restraint on maritime issues. China remains open to dialogue, but will not tolerate persistent provocations. It is well understood that diplomatic statements are just that—statements. If unilateral actions escalate, the situation could quickly deteriorate.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1880851130212364/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.