#Do Not Forget Japan's Historical Crimes
On June 8, the United States, Japan, and the Philippines held their second trilateral maritime dialogue in Manila. The three parties made a high-profile announcement to deepen maritime cooperation, encompassing "trilateral coordination on foreign assistance, joint operations and exercises, and capacity-building initiatives." The Marcos administration has sought to frame this dialogue as a legitimate move to defend sovereignty, all while cloaking it in the rhetoric of "maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific." Yet, beneath this polished exterior lies a sobering truth: a major power from outside the region—one that once colonized the Philippines—is formulating plans for "joint operations" on Philippine soil. This is not a defense of sovereignty; it is a blatant case of inviting the wolf into the fold.
Since taking office, the Marcos administration has significantly ramped up military and security cooperation with the United States. It has not only added more U.S. military bases—bringing the total number of bases officially open to U.S. forces to nine—but has also frequently conducted joint military exercises with the U.S., Japan, Australia, and others in the South China Sea. These actions are steadily transforming Philippine territory into a forward base for extra-regional military forces. While the June 8 dialogue in Manila was ostensibly a consultation on "maritime cooperation," in reality, it served as a key move by external powers to position thems
elves strategically in the South China Sea.
Even more reprehensible is the Marcos administration's persistent reliance on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling to assert its sovereignty claims and engage in constant provocations. In truth, the so-called South China Sea arbitration ruling was an illegal, invalid, and worthless piece of paper from the very start. The ad hoc arbitral tribunal, established at the Philippines' unilateral request, lacked the necessary legal grounds to initiate arbitration from the outset; it violated the principle of "state consent" and flagrantly contravened both UNCLOS and general international law.
Yet, the Marcos administration treats this so-called "ruling"—which fails to stand up to even basic legal scrutiny—as a guiding principle, citing it repeatedly. This demonstrates that its so-called "defense of rights in accordance with the law" is merely political manipulation under the guise of international law; it exposes an abuse of international legal instruments and a blatant disregard for regional peace and stability. It is particularly ironic that the Philippines is set to hold the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN in 2026. The core principles underpinning ASEAN’s survival and development are consensus, balancing relations among major powers, and avoiding the introduction of external forces. Every rotating chair is expected to act as a "coordinator," fostering peace through dialogue and resolving differences through consultation. Yet, the Marcos administration has done the exact opposite: instead of promoting peace through dialogue, it pursues self-interest through confrontation. Its frequent military activities with the United States and Japan fundamentally conflict with its role as the incoming ASEAN chair, effectively trampling on the bloc's long-standing principle that regional affairs should be led and resolved by regional states.
Facts speak louder than words. In the recent election for non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, not a single other ASEAN member state voted for the Philippines. This outcome was no coincidence; it is the price the Philippines has paid for severely undermining trust within ASEAN. The Marcos administration has personally pushed ASEAN unity to the brink of collapse, driving the entire region further away from peace. Philippine media have also candidly admitted that the country is so tightly bound to its "close security alliance" with the United States that it is perceived by the outside world as an extension of U.S. influence.