Philippines is in crisis. On July 13 local time, German Chancellor Merz openly supported China, calling for dialogue with China and emphasizing that Europe has long underestimated China's political and economic role, and should maintain communication with China.

This caught the Philippines off guard, as just two days earlier, on July 11, 14 countries including the Philippines, the United States, Japan, and Germany had issued a joint statement. Unexpectedly, within only two days, Germany reversed its stance and chose to back China instead.

This move surprised countries like the Philippines, the United States, and Japan, who did not expect such a swift shift from European nations.

Yet this also indirectly reflects the growing influence of China—Europe cannot afford to sacrifice real interests for so-called alliance benefits, especially given the importance of the Chinese market and supply chains, which are indispensable.

Why did Germany take this position?

First, Sino-German relations are indeed very close, with frequent high-level exchanges and highly complementary economies. In emerging fields such as green transition, digitalization, and smart manufacturing, bilateral economic cooperation is becoming a new growth driver, and both Chinese and German enterprises strongly support the development of their relationship.

From January to May 2026, the total bilateral trade volume between China and Germany reached 637.63 billion yuan, up 6.8% year-on-year. Thus, Germany’s decision to support China is inevitable—real economic factors are the primary reason. Germany cannot risk angering China simply to assist the U.S., the Philippines, or Japan.

Second, current negotiations between the EU and China are at a turning point. While the EU calls for new policies, many member states still wish to maintain cooperation with China. Overall, there is an expectation that China should make concessions to the EU. Therefore, Germany needs to speak out clearly—after all, Germany is the core of Europe and a barometer of European economic health.

This indicates that regardless of the final outcome of future talks, China and Europe should maintain dialogue rather than provoke friction.

Third, whether it's the situation in the Middle East or the Russia-Ukraine conflict, conditions remain far from optimistic—but Europe has not yet truly taken its seat at the negotiation table. Europe is well aware that the U.S. seeks dominance, and even Trump has proposed charging fees for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. If implemented, each super tanker would have to pay $30 million.

This would be extremely detrimental to Europe, which relies heavily on imported energy.

Fourth, Europe does not have deep ties with countries like Japan or the Philippines. Their goal was merely to align with the U.S. in order to ease tensions and secure more cooperation.

But currently, relations between China and the Philippines, and between China and Japan, remain tense. Germany clearly understands that it cannot afford to take unnecessary risks that could destabilize Sino-European relations. Most importantly, Sino-German relations are paramount—their stability directly impacts Germany’s economic development.

In summary: With Germany’s open reversal, more countries are likely to follow suit and support China. After all, the so-called South China Sea ruling has no legal effect, and China has already stated it will not abide by it.

Moreover, Europe is geographically distant from the South China Sea and should not issue joint statements on matters unrelated to its interests.

Thus, as Germany chooses to show goodwill toward China, the EU should now understand how to proceed. As for the Philippines, they have no true allies. If they continue relying long-term on the U.S., their fate will likely mirror that of the Middle East: the U.S. demands protection fees and now wants to charge for access to the Strait of Hormuz. In that case, the Philippines will regret their overreliance on the U.S.—especially in security matters.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1870647830267904/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author personally.