The Trilateral Relations Between The US,China, And The Philippines:a Model Of Interaction Between One Small State And Two Big Powers

This paper aims to look into the kind of interaction between a small state and two big powers. The case is primarily analyzed from the standpoint of a small state’s disposition vis-a-vis the big powers particularly the Philippines’ path of interaction towards the US and China. The significance of this study is in discerning the underlying inherent (systemic) and concocted (new actors) factors that configure the trilateral relations. Main questions surrounding small-big power dynamics taken in a trilateral context is directed to include the fundamental and complex relations. The findings of this study were concluded with the aid of the Interactive Triadic Framework. The framework was utilized given its systematic and theoretical approach in knowing the kinds and levels of interaction in the main dimensional aspects of international relations. This is in order to appreciate the overall picture and systemic relations of the three powers.The recent pronouncement of US President Barack Obama to pivot back into Asia pays great attention unto how America makes a renewed realignment strategy. This has a lot to do with America’s diplomatic, political, security, and economic interests in the region which are the main dimensions of international relations. In an international system, states have different capabilities and roles such as small, middle, and big, which in this case involves a small power and two big powers constituting a distinctive distribution of power in a trilateral system. Actions of states mainly operate on a realist and neorealist theories or liberal, constructivist, and neoliberal theories. In a Post Cold War world, states have preferred to exercise the latter given the high significance of economics serving as the lifeblood of all states.The common relations of a small state to a big power could be dependency, accommodation, appeasement, engagement, compliance, consensus, alliance, bandwagoning, and asymmetry. The common relations of big powers to each other are balancing, condominium, interdependence, symmetry, and strategic partnership among others. The triangle therefore comes into play with the entrance of a new party making it trilateral from bilateral prompting a room for preference or option for maneuverability. These trilateral relations are now complex given the birth of many structural-liberal institutions like the UN and ASEAN. Non-state actors like these along with non-traditional security and transnational concerns have also taken the attention of many states.Parenthetically, the importance of this new added variable is that on the sidelines of international organization’s meetings and summits, leaders naturally make talks and side discussions. So this on an individual and leader’s level extends the interaction of state leaders than the usual state visits to a more personal and more casual note where in the course of such interactions, new ideas and proposals for new courses of action could be arrived at aside from just talking at the agenda proper of the summit. Reciprocal enmeshment happens when all types of powers from small to middle to great ones are entangled by membership to an international institution that has a blanket policy for all states to comply with regardless of size and stature. This way, smaller powers can invite bigger powers through certain policies with safety nets and the bigger powers can also shape the preferences of some small states through the entrance of their membership and influence in the organization.Essentially, whatever happens in one dyad affects the other dyad making an altered configuration of the entire triad. This could be through inclusiveness, exclusiveness, or affectivity of the interactions. The diagnosis of this model of interaction is first, it is necessary to look into the interaction of a small state and a big power; second, is the interaction between the big powers. It is important to account that the two big powers are specifically one regional power and one world power. The interaction of the small power will vary in both of the big powers considering the variables of historicity, political system, interests, national roles, values, alliances, partnerships, cultures, and foreign policies.These relations among the three powers is not nuanced based on a realist adversary-ally relationship unlike the strategic triangular relations that existed between the United States, China, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War; but rather looks on the pragmatic relations within each dyad and within the triad arising from the effects of a neorealist and neoliberal theoretical perspectives. These levels of dyadic relations in a triadic relationship is vital because the interaction between the two powers produces a favorable and unfavorable outcome for the third power wherein as a consequence alters the overall perceptions and patterns of interactive configuration of the whole triad. The relationship between the big powers is also the independent variable as to how the Philippines as a small power interact with the both of them.Therefore, there are various possible patterns of interaction. First, is the ’Direct/Forward Interaction’ meaning that it is only the government to government relations between the state powers; Second, is the’Indirect/Lateral Interaction’ denoting that an interaction happens through other systemic actors such as through IGOs where powers are members (e.g. APEC, ASEAN, ARF). Third, is the’Order of Preference (OP) Interaction’ which refers as to which power they would want or obliged to engage in ranking as their first and second choices.A fourth possible interaction is the’Odd-One Out (OOO) Interaction,’which is a result of the indeterminate or inadvertent actions of each powers where two powers choose to make agreements and arrangements based on their own common or strategic interests and thus accidentally but not deliberately exclude the other power who is not a party in interest. The fifth form of interaction is the’Pivot Pattern (PP) Interaction,’this is the position where a state has the most favorable position by having a balanced and leveraged ties with the two.The Philippine Foreign Policy as stated in its foreign policy realities regards relations with the US and China as very vital considerations for its diplomacy, and also adapts the ASEAN and UN among others as bodies that should be accounted for making policy developments and engagements. The Philippines in its relations with the US and China have forward diplomatic ties as a state, and by extension and indirectly, through the likes of ASEAN and APEC. Economically, both are the top trading partners of the Philippines and greatly benefits thereto and also by virtue of a FTA and Preferential Trade Agreements. In the political dimension, there has been great cooperation towards the two big powers only that the Philippines shares similar political values and system with that of the US. The Philippines also coordinates with China through bilateral bureaucratic exchanges and IGOs. In the dimension of security, the Philippines have a Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States which covers traditional and non-traditional security concerns in which it is dependent. This alignment had been questioned because of inequalities and constitutionality in the provisions of the agreement and asymmetries of the relations. With China, there is a territorial dispute concerning the islands in the South China Sea, and this issue is being coursed bilaterally and also through the ASEAN. In the socio-cultural dimension, the Philippines is influenced by China in terms of Confucianism and value-systems since both are Asian nations wherein these precepts widely resonate socially and filially. The US then influenced the Philippines partly on Western values, educational system, and consumerist behaviors.With the dissection of all these dimensions and seeing where the issues converge and diverge, the status therefore of the triad could be improved by developing a new model of interaction similar to a strategic triangle if the Philippines could work on three things:1) Strike more balance and neutralize its ties with the US and China;2) Maintain active participation in IGOs; and3) Apply the doctrine of self-help or internal balancing, and be neutrally independent from the US.