As Trump, Xi sip tea

As Trump, Xi sip tea | Daily Tribune

The US Embassy condemned what Ambassador Lee Lipton called dangerous and irresponsible maneuvers that risked a collision and obstructed a resupply mission Washington considers lawful and routine.

“We stand by our Philippine allies,” Lipton said.

Beijing, naturally, saw it differently. The Chinese Embassy accused Washington of disregarding right and wrong by backing what it called the Philippines’ “provocative and unlawful actions” at Ren’ai Reef, the Chinese name for Ayungin, and told it to stop “fanning the flames.”

It also claimed the mission violated Manila’s commitments under the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. The script has barely changed over the years.

Manila and Washington invoke international law and freedom of navigation. Beijing, which rejects the 2016 arbitral ruling that invalidated the legal basis for its sweeping claims, insists those claims entitle it to decide what Philippine vessels may do in waters Manila regards as part of its exclusive economic zone.

The Trump-Xi summit had a different tone. It was marked by warm language, ceremony, and an evident effort by both leaders to keep their relations from deteriorating, though Taiwan, trade, technology, military competition, and rival interests across the Indo-Pacific remained unresolved.

The relationship matters too much, economically and strategically, for either side to treat it as a simple contest between friends and enemies. One reported remark shows how far apart the two conversations were.

US Ambassador to China David Perdue told Fox News that Trump had, at one point, asked Xi whether China would like to buy American weapons. The State Department has since said the United States has no plans to sell weapons to China.

Even so, the remark stood out. American arms sales to Taiwan are among the most contentious issues in US-China relations, and Beijing has repeatedly warned Washington against strengthening the island’s military.

The remark changed no policy, but it showed a President who treats China as a customer as well as a rival. Washington can condemn Chinese actions against the Philippines, reaffirm its defense commitment to Manila, and still negotiate with Beijing on trade and a steadier relationship.

That is not a contradiction. One position reflects what Washington owes an ally, the other what it needs from a rival, and great powers pursue both at once.

For Filipinos, Lipton’s words are what a treaty ally should say, and they matter. Chinese vessels keep challenging Philippine operations in the West Philippine Sea, and Manila faces a far larger power whose coast guard and navy can deploy in numbers it cannot match.

But the United States has interests far beyond the South China Sea. Taiwan, trade and technology all run through its relationship with Beijing, and Washington has good reason to keep every confrontation involving an ally from becoming a crisis between the world’s two largest military and economic powers.

Most of the time, backing Manila and steadying relations with Beijing sit comfortably together. When they do not, Washington will weigh one against the other.

Filipinos can value American support without assuming that Washington’s calculations will always match Manila’s, or mistaking an embassy statement for the whole of American policy.

Viewed from Manila, Ayungin is the whole dispute. Viewed from Washington or from Beijing, it is just one item on a long list.