In the Philippines, the term “foreign influence operations” has become a catch-all for everything from cultural exchange to covert espionage. Much of the public debate, however, has narrowed to a single focus: China. Analysts point to media partnerships, educational exchanges, and economic investments as channels through which Beijing allegedly seeks to sway Philippine opinion and policy. Yet the picture is far more layered than alarmist narratives suggest.
Defining the threat
There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a foreign influence operation. Scholars and policymakers generally agree that it involves organized efforts by states or non-state actors to shape perceptions and behaviors in ways that advance their interests. These can range from public diplomacy and cultural programs to covert disinformation and espionage. The key distinction lies not in the activity itself but in its intent, transparency, and effect.
China’s toolkit in the Philippines is broad. It includes media messaging that frames maritime disputes in its favor, United Front activities that cultivate ties with Filipino-Chinese communities, and economic leverage through investments and trade. In the education sector, thousands of teachers from mainland China staff Chinese-language schools, embedding cultural and ideological influence. In Cagayan, special economic zones have created dependencies that critics say could become political leverage.
But not all of this is malign. Scholarships, language programs, and tourism are forms of cultural diplomacy that can foster mutual understanding. As Indonesia’s experience with China shows, the question of who is “foreign” is not always clear-cut. For the Philippines, rejecting all Chinese initiatives would be self-defeating and risk lapsing into Sinophobia.
Beyond China
China is not the only country practicing influence operations in the Philippines. The United States, through its long-standing alliance, shapes Philippine opinion and policy via military cooperation, development assistance, and cultural programs. American power is returning to the Philippines, one modest project at a time, and with it comes a certain soft-power footprint.
Japan, Australia, and South Korea also conduct influence operations, often framed as cooperative initiatives. Japan invests in infrastructure and maritime security, Australia in defense and education, and South Korea in cultural diplomacy and defense ties. Each pursues its own strategic interests while cultivating goodwill. Recognizing this multiplicity helps the Philippines avoid selective outrage and adopt a consistent, sovereign-centered approach.
Risks and resilience
The risks are real. Espionage networks targeting defense institutions, cyber intrusions into government systems, and covert funding of local actors are genuine vulnerabilities. Such operations can erode trust in democratic institutions and compromise national security. But alarmism is counterproductive. Overstating the threat risks fueling xenophobia and undermining bilateral cooperation.
Philippine society is not passive. Its pluralistic media, vibrant civil society, and critical academic community actively resist foreign manipulation. Investigative journalism exposes covert activities, while NGOs and universities scrutinize foreign influence. Government agencies, though resource-constrained, continue to monitor espionage and cyber threats. As the Hormuz crisis reshaped ASEAN economies, the Philippines learned that external shocks can be managed with resilience and diversification.
Unlawful and coercive operations—bribery, covert manipulation, interference in domestic politics—must be firmly resisted, whether they come from China, the United States, or any other country. But the challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate engagement from unlawful manipulation. By strengthening transparency, accountability, and public awareness, the Philippines can blunt external manipulation while ensuring that unlawful operations are exposed and neutralized.
Pragmatic nationalism—accepting beneficial exchanges while rejecting coercive tactics—offers a confident assertion of sovereignty. Manila can continue to nurture its alliance with Washington while strengthening partnerships with other states for security guarantees and development support. Balancing these relationships is not a contradiction but a necessity for a genuinely independent foreign policy.
