The Philippines cannot pursue contradictory paths

Amid escalating conflicts in the Middle East, the Philippines has emerged as one of the first nations to face tangible repercussions. Recently, Philippine President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos declared a nationwide energy emergency via executive order -- the first country to declare a nationwide energy emergency since disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Heavily reliant on imported energy, the Philippines confronts surging oil prices that exacerbate already high inflation and pose significant political risks. Transport groups across the country have repeatedly staged large-scale protests outside the presidential palace, denouncing soaring fuel costs and governmental inaction.

What followed, however, was particularly noteworthy.

On the very day the energy emergency was declared, Marcos suddenly adopted an unexpectedly conciliatory stance toward China, stating that bilateral relations would "certainly be adjusted." He voiced readiness to resume bilateral oil and gas cooperation, and even thanked China for its generous fertilizer assistance.

The conciliatory tone, however, proved short-lived. Within days, the Philippines reverted to familiar tactics: Marcos signed another executive order, unilaterally renaming 131 maritime features within China's Nansha Islands in the South China Sea. At the same time, Philippine vessels intruded into waters near China's Huangyan Island under the jurisdiction of the China Coast Guard, clearly attempting to stir up incidents and generate media hype.

This abrupt shift from gratitude to provocation reflects an ill-advised strategy of dual-track opportunism. Domestically, many Philippine politicians simultaneously court external allies that benefit from South China Sea tensions under the guise of national security, while remaining deeply dependent on economic cooperation with China. This contradictory approach becomes especially pronounced during regional tensions or domestic crises.

Shortly after taking office in 2022, Marcos signaled interest in resuming joint energy development talks with China to diversify the Philippines' energy supply. As he stated, cooperation was essential -- because the resources were needed.

Yet subsequent actions contradicted this rhetoric. While claiming to separate territorial disputes from trade arrangements, the Marcos administration has actively brought in extra-regional military forces, continuously stirred frictions in sensitive waters, and let anti-China rhetoric dominate public debate, misleading its people.

The administration's pattern is clear: provoke China while expecting its assistance. Such duplicitous maneuvering has become routine in Manila's recent policymaking.

But can this two-faced strategy succeed?

The ongoing energy crisis exposes the Philippines' structural vulnerabilities: a fragile economy, excessive import dependence, and self-sabotaging entanglement in geopolitical tensions. These factors render the nation uniquely susceptible to global instability -- a reality underscored by historical precedent. Philippine politicians should seriously reconsider what truly serves national interests and how to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Geography is immutable: neighbors cannot be relocated. Prudent statecraft demands constructive engagement. Provoking conflicts while seeking emergency aid is neither credible nor acceptable. If the Philippines truly cares about the well-being of its people and desires stable relations with China, it must fundamentally recalibrate its China strategy and cease provocative actions.

China takes note of the Philippines' stated wish to stabilize relations and enhance dialogue, and hopes the Philippine side will meet China halfway by taking concrete actions to create the conditions needed for steady improvement in bilateral ties.

This energy emergency should serve as a sobering lesson: deliberately undermining cooperation with China while expecting its benefits is unsustainable. Those attempting to play both sides ultimately gain neither.