Rommel C. Banlaoi | September 21, 2026
Filipinos today live with two faces of China. One is the geopolitical China, assertive in the West Philippine Sea, often seen as a threat to sovereignty and regional stability. The other is everyday China, present in smartphones, electric vehicles, apps, dramas, cuisine, and consumer goods, among others, that have become part of ordinary life.
Jan Robert R. Go’s recent commentary captures a paradox that Filipinos cannot ignore. Many Filipinos reject Beijing’s assertive conduct in the West Philippine Sea, yet remain receptive to Chinese culture, technology, and everyday exchanges with China. (Also read: Pragmatic Nationalism: A Philippine Foreign and Security Policy Framework)
This distinction, in fact, reflects the finding of Ronald A. Pernia and Ranjit Singh Rye that Filipino distrust of China stems primarily from national-level concerns, particularly territorial conflicts, whereas attitudes toward Chinese nationals are influenced more by local social and cultural experiences. (Also read: Standing up to China)
The task, therefore, is not to choose between vigilance and engagement, but to uphold both in order to protect Philippine national interests without allowing distrust alone to shape the current and future direction of the country’s bilateral ties with China.
Distrust Rooted in Maritime Disputes
In his commentary, Go uses opinion survey data consistently showing that Filipinos arguably regard China as the country’s top security threat. The 2016 arbitral award remains a cornerstone of Manila’s legal position despite China’s continuing objection.
But Beijing’s refusal to recognize the arbitral award has reinforced perceptions of coercion. Each new incident in the West Philippine Sea, whether involving coast guard vessels, fishing rights, or military maneuvers deepens public skepticism. In the Philippines, China’s geopolitical face is sadly defined by assertiveness and Filipino perception of China’s utter disregard for international law.
Everyday China and Generational Shifts
Paradoxically, however, growing number of younger Filipinos, particularly those from the Gen Z, are encountering China in more benign ways. Go cites Pew’s 2026 opinion survey revealing that 47 percent of Filipinos under 30 hold favorable views of China, compared to only 27 percent among older generations.
But it has to be understood that this openness stems from cultural and technological exposure and not from blind acceptance of Beijing’s maritime claims. Pernia and Rye study reflects the reality that China is more than a geopolitical actor in the West Philippine Sea. It is also a source of consumer goods, digital platforms, and cultural products that resonate with daily life of Filipinos.
The Imperative of Dialogue
The coexistence of distrust and engagement truly underscores the need for sustained dialogues between Manila and Beijing. Dialogue is a mechanism for managing differences, deescalating tensions, and rebuilding confidence in order to seek common grounds for peaceful coexistence and pragmatic cooperation.
The Philippines must move from crisis reaction to crisis prevention by institutionalizing mechanisms that manage tensions before they escalate. Reviving defense and maritime dialogue platforms, particularly the suspended Annual Defense and Security Talks (ADST), would provide reliable channels for communication, reduce the risks of miscalculation, and strengthen crisis-management protocols. Such engagement can also expand cooperation in non-traditional security areas, including disaster response, maritime safety, anti-piracy operations, and counterterrorism, while allowing both sides to address their differences more constructively.
Even the United States, despite its deep strategic rivalry with China, has engaged in defense dialogues to manage great power competition. Both powers comprehensively engage each other to pursue what they call as constructive strategic stability in their relations.
If Washington can talk to Beijing, Manila has even stronger grounds to do so. Though dialogue does not resolve disputes overnight, it, however, builds the essential incremental trust that can lay the solid foundation for stable bilateral relations.
Policy Directions
Rebuilding confidence requires institutionalized mechanisms that allow both sides to communicate regularly and predictably. Confidence-building measures are essential to prevent incidents from escalating into crises. Managing differences must be pursued through established platforms, such as the existing Bilateral Consultative Mechanism (BCM) and the ADST, which can address disputes while exploring cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Deescalating tensions also demands the creation of crisis communication channels that can prevent maritime encounters from spiraling into confrontation. Pursuing cooperation in non-traditional security areas such as humanitarian assistance, environmental protection, and counterterrorism can demonstrate that constructive engagement is possible even amid disputes.
Conclusion
Filipinos are learning to separate Beijing’s geopolitical behavior from the broader cultural and technological presence of China. This differentiation is healthy. But it must be matched by a clear policy of sustained dialogue.
The Philippines cannot afford to let distrust alone define its relationship with China. By rebuilding confidence, managing differences, deescalating tensions, and pursuing pragmatic cooperation, Manila can chart a forward-looking course that safeguards national sovereignty while recognizing the realities of everyday interactions between Filipinos and Chinese communities, a distinction underscored by the work of Pernia and Rye and cautiously examined by Go.
Rommel C. Banlaoi, PhD, is Director of the Philippines–China Studies Center at Diliman College, President of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies and former President of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies.
