By Prof. Anna Malindog-Uy

 

WHEN great powers squabble, small states pay the price. And in today’s Asia, the spat is no longer a polite diplomatic dance. It’s an increasingly public, sharp-edged confrontation between Japan and China. Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, with the swagger of someone who forgets the historical lessons and caveats of World War II, declared that Japan may intervene militarily if China “takes over” Taiwan in a way that threatens Japan’s survival and collapses its “pacifist ambiguity” and violates the spirit, if not the text of Article 9 of Japan’s post-war Constitution that renounces war and prohibits the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In many more ways than one, the statement of Takaichi effectively pre-authorizes war, which is constitutionally problematic and politically and regionally destabilizing. Note that Japan has long relied on strategic ambiguity to maintain deterrence without explicitly committing to war.

Furthermore, Takaichi has basically locked Japan into a more rigid position and removed diplomatic ambiguity. Her politicization of Japan’s foreign policy for domestic favor, for political signaling, rallying conservative support, and projecting leadership strength is problematic because the domestic political theater is being played out at the expense of international military risks, while Japan’s neighbors, specifically China, see this as populist warmongering. Such poorly calibrated statements in a high-risk environment fuel the security dilemma.

Of course, Beijing, unsurprisingly, replied with fire and fury, travel warnings, summons of diplomats, stepped-up coast guard patrols, and PLA drones buzzing around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands as if to say: “We, too, can raise the temperature.”

But while Tokyo and Beijing exchange diplomatic artillery, Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines, sits on the geopolitical fault line. And unlike Japan’s well-coordinated national security apparatus or China’s monolithic strategic machinery and state-of-the-art military capability, the Philippines today is led by a president whose government is drowning in massive corruption scandals, with deeply securitized US-leaning foreign policy, with the more entrenched Japan-US-Philippines trilateral defense/military alliance anchored on the RAA (Reciprocal Access Agreement), a president who, according to his older sister, is a drug-dependent, facing the broadest calls for resignation since the Estrada era. Indeed, the universe is yelling right now: “Change leadership before the geopolitical storm hits.”

Japan-China spat

Takaichi’s statement may have sounded like a firm deterrence signal to Tokyo’s allies, but to Beijing it was a neon-bright provocation. The message: Japan is no longer hiding behind constitutional ambiguity. It is now willing — if push comes to shove — to exchange blows with China over Taiwan.

Let’s be real: this is not your grandfather’s cautious, pacifist Japan. This is a Japan that has rewritten its security strategy, is trying to acquire more counter-strike capabilities, has raised defense budgets to Cold War levels, and has locked arms with the US and Australia; expanded defense, military and security cooperation with the Philippines; and most importantly, opened the door for direct military involvement in a potential Taiwan conflict.

Beijing is probably thinking that Japan has effectively declared itself a co-belligerent-in-waiting. This is akin to Japan’s preemptive intervention or preventive war posture, both of which clash with Japan’s constitutional tradition and regional expectations, and violate the UN Charter’s principle of non-intervention in China’s internal affairs, which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense. Lest Japan forgets, Taiwan is an internal matter under Beijing’s One China policy.

For anyone who understands geopolitics, Japan seems to be preparing to become a combatant in a potential Taiwan conflict, not just a logistical rear base. Thus, Beijing’s retaliation, diplomatic, economic and maritime, is not merely emotional. It is structural. This is the new strategic reality: A tense Japan–China dyad that increasingly defines the Indo-Pacific’s security atmosphere.

Where does this leave PH?

Given the regional geopolitical landscape, the Philippines should, under normal circumstances, be maneuvering smartly, competently, and with discipline, just like its Asean counterparts. However, Manila is not operating under normal circumstances today. Instead, we have a sitting president whose government is battered by massive corruption exposés, drug-related allegations involving his own family, and a sagging national economy.

This is not just a domestic scandal. It is a geopolitical liability and vulnerability. Because as Japan and China sharpen their rhetoric and military postures, the Philippines must make decisions with clarity, credibility and coherence. The country cannot afford a commander-in-chief whose moral authority, political capital and legitimacy and trust and approval ratings are at the bottom and continually eroding by the day, with a drug dependency, impairment and susceptibility that more or less affect his performance, compromising military decisions, foreign policy, diplomatic engagements and response to crisis. Geopolitics requires a serious adult at the helm. Instead, the Philippines has, well, shall we say, someone who has difficulty showing up sober even in speeches.

Asean, the Global South

The Asean region now faces a strategic equation: a newly aggressive Japan, a reactive China, and a US eager to draw partners into its containment coalition against China.

Asean’s classic hedging becomes harder when the great powers no longer speak softly. And the Global South, especially countries dependent on Chinese trade and Japanese investment, must walk a tightrope with no safety net.

The risks? Accidental escalation. The East China Sea, South China Sea, and the Taiwan Strait are now linked. A military clash in any of these locations would be potentially catastrophic for the region, and most definitely, the Philippines under the Marcos government will be dragged into any military conflict or eventualities. This is dangerous.

Leadership change

This geopolitical storm is not waiting for the Philippines to fix its domestic mess. The region is moving fast. The Philippines must catch up or be crushed between tectonic powers.

The Marcos administration’s scandals, massive corruption, budget insertions, drug use allegations and incompetence are not merely embarrassing. They are strategic vulnerabilities and liabilities. Foreign policy demands sound judgment, credible leadership, clean governance and national unity. The Philippines has none of these under the current leadership. This is why the calls for resignation are more than a moral outcry. They are an act of strategic necessity. A president embroiled in drug use allegations cannot credibly confront a foreign power’s coercion. A government drowning in massive corruption cannot negotiate from a position of strength. A leader whose legitimacy is at the bottom and eroding cannot mobilize the nation during a crisis. The universe may indeed be sending a sign: “Leadership change is not a political drama. It is geopolitical survival.” In a time of hawks, the Philippines cannot be led by a lame duck.

Conclusion

The Indo-Pacific is entering its most dangerous decade since 1945. The Philippines stands at the crossroads of these tectonic shifts. But with a president who cannot even manage his own household, let alone statecraft, the country stands on dangerous ground amidst the geopolitical challenges and maneuvering of major powers. If the Philippines wants to avoid becoming collateral damage in all these, it must first fix its own house, its statecraft, its leadership and its own credibility. Because when hawks fight overhead, doves below either fly smart or end up being crushed.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: