By Rommel C. Banlaoi

Ten years after the Arbitral Award commemorated on July 12, Philippines-China relations remain tense. Despite diplomatic overtures and ongoing economic engagement, unresolved maritime disputes continue to cast a long shadow over bilateral ties. The award remains a central reference point for Manila's legal position in the South China Sea, while Beijing continues to reject it, making practical mechanisms for communication even more important when incidents occur at sea.

Recent incidents have underscored the fragility of the relationship. Last month, the Philippine Coast Guard documented China's new research vessel, Tong Ji, operating less than a nautical mile from Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal) — just one day after authorities confirmed the removal of a Chinese floating platform inside the lagoon. The encounter was accompanied by radio challenges from Chinese military forces directed at a Philippine surveillance flight.

Ties deteriorated further when China banned Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro and his family from entering the country. The Philippines has also recalled its defense attaché from Beijing. Taken together, these developments highlight the urgency of reviving long-dormant defense dialogues between the two nations.

In 2004, China and the Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Cooperation, establishing annual dialogues and intelligence exchanges. This framework gave rise to the Philippines-China Defense and Security Dialogue (PCDSD), which was eventually renamed the Annual Defense and Security Talks (ADST). The ADST fostered cooperation in counterterrorism, transnational crime, freedom of navigation, and maritime safety.

However, after its fifth round in 2013, the ADST was suspended when the Philippines filed its arbitration case against China. Subsequent attempts to revive the mechanism in 2017 and 2023 failed, as both sides held firm to entrenched positions on territorial disputes.

There is now an urgent need to reconvene the ADST to shift Philippines-China relations from confrontation toward cooperation. Structured dialogues like the ADST can mitigate risks by establishing crisis communication channels that reduce the likelihood of miscalculation in contested waters. In a crowded maritime environment involving coast guards, naval units, research vessels, fishing boats, and aircraft, even limited communication protocols can help clarify intentions before encounters escalate.

While the Bilateral Consultative Mechanism (BCM) on the South China Sea already exists, the ADST remains indispensable as a defense-specific platform for discussing military cooperation across both traditional and non-traditional security domains, including disaster relief, anti-piracy operations, and counterterrorism.

Even the United States, despite its great-power rivalry with China, maintains defense dialogue to manage competition. If Washington sustains such exchanges, Manila has even stronger grounds to pursue a similar course.

Maritime cooperation and ocean governance should be vital agenda items in any revived defense talks. As an archipelagic state, the Philippines depends on the sea for food security, trade, and national survival. China, as a dominant maritime power, shares interests in sustainable fisheries, maritime safety, and freedom of navigation. Joint efforts in search-and-rescue, disaster management, environmental research, and sustainable resource management could reduce tensions without prejudicing either side's sovereignty claims.

Engaging China in defense dialogue will not weaken the Philippines' military alliance with the United States. On the contrary, such talks can enhance Philippine sovereignty by broadening Manila's security partnerships with other countries. Reviving discussions with Beijing is, in fact, part of pursuing strategic autonomy. Ocean governance also provides an effective platform for cooperation as mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Reviving defense talks does not mean abandoning sovereignty claims — dialogue remains the most effective instrument for defending them. While no one expects defense dialogue to magically resolve the South China Sea dispute, it can create an enabling environment for direct negotiations and frameworks designed to lower tensions. It signals responsible stewardship of shared waters through ocean governance initiatives, shifting the Philippines from reactive crisis management to proactive crisis prevention. By institutionalizing talks under the ADST, Manila and Beijing can move from perpetual competition toward genuine cooperation, laying the groundwork for a more stable and forward-looking trajectory in their security relations.

Beyond security, defense talks also serve economic interests. Strategic stability reduces risk premiums, encourages investment, and reassures both domestic and foreign enterprises that tensions will be managed rather than allowed to spiral out of control. A predictable environment attracts capital, sustains trade, and strengthens economic partnerships. Embedding defense dialogue into the bilateral relationship ensures that economic cooperation thrives alongside security cooperation, allowing business confidence to grow in tandem with regional peace.

In short, defense dialogue is both a security imperative and an economic strategy — one vital to the Philippines' long-term national interest.

Rommel C. Banlaoi, PhD, is director of the Philippines-China Studies Center at Diliman College and president of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies. He was a professor at the National Defense College of the Philippines.