MANILA: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Wednesday defended his decision to allow a larger United States military presence in the country as vital to territorial defense despite China’s fierce opposition and warning that it would “drag the Philippines into the abyss of geopolitical strife.”
The Marcos administration announced in early February that it would allow rotating batches of American forces to indefinitely stay in four more Philippine military camps in addition to five local bases earlier designated under a 2014 defense pact of the longtime treaty allies.
Marcos said without elaborating that the four new sites would be announced soon and they include areas in the northern Philippines. That location has infuriated Chinese officials because it would provide US forces a staging ground close to southern China and Taiwan.
The Biden administration has been strengthening an arc of military alliances in the Indo-Pacific to better counter China, including in any future confrontation over Taiwan. America’s moves dovetail with Philippine efforts to shore up its territorial defense amid a long-seething dispute mainly with China in the South China Sea.
Aside from the northern and southern Philippines, Marcos told a news conference without elaborating that, under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, US forces would also be allowed to stay in western Palawan province, which faces the South China Sea. He underscored that the moves were meant to boost the country’s coastal defense and added in reply to a question that opposition to the US military presence by some local Filipino officials had been overcome.
“We explained to them why it was important that we have that and why it will actually be good for their province,” Marcos said, adding most of those who had objections had come around “to support the idea of an EDCA site in their province.”
Governor Manuel Mamba of northern Cagayan province, where American forces may be allowed to stay with their weapons in up to two Philippine military camps, said Marcos has the prerogative to make the decision but he remained opposed to it. He had earlier expressed fears that allowing the Americans to base in Cagayan, which lies across a sea border from Southern China, Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait, could turn his province into a key target of the Chinese military if a conflict involving the US military breaks out over Taiwan.
“It is the president’s call, not mine,” Mamba said. “But I maintain my stand against any foreign forces stationed in my province. Still, I am against EDCA sites in my province.”
US and Philippine officials have said that American-funded construction of barracks, warehouses and other structures to be used by US forces and contractors would generate much-needed local jobs and boost the economy. The US presence would help the Philippines respond to natural disasters, enhance combat-readiness and help deter Chinese aggression in Asia.
China, however, has repeatedly accused Washington of taking steps to contain it militarily and of driving a wedge between Beijing its Asian neighbors like the Philippines.
“Creating economic opportunities and jobs through military cooperation is tantamount to quenching thirst with poison and gouging flesh to heal wounds,” the Chinese embassy in Manila said in a recent statement. “Such cooperation will seriously endanger regional peace and stability and drag the Philippines into the abyss of geopolitical strife and damage its economic development at the end of the day.”
US forces have intensified and broadened joint training, focusing on combat readiness and disaster response with Filipino troops on the nation’s western coast, which faces the South China Sea, and in its northern Luzon region across the sea from the Taiwan Strait.
Next month, the allied forces are to hold one of their largest combat exercises, called Balikatan — Tagalog for shoulder-to-shoulder — which will include live-fire drills. One planned maneuver involves US and Philippine forces firing rockets to sink a mock enemy ship in waters facing the South China Sea, the Philippine military said.
If the ship-sinking exercise proceeds as planned, it would likely draw an angry reaction from China, which claims the strategic waterway virtually in its entirety and has turned seven disputed reefs into missile-guided island bases to defend its territorial claims.
![]()
Philippine president Marcos Jr. defends US military presence, which China opposes
Short Url
https://arab.news/vu8nb
Philippine president Marcos Jr. defends US military presence, which China opposes
- US forces would be allowed to stay in western Palawan province, which faces the South China Sea
- Philippine president: Moves were meant to boost the country’s coastal defense
In the Arctic, the major climate threat of black carbon is overshadowed by geopolitical tensions
REYKJAVIK: As rising global temperatures speed up the melting of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it’s set off a boom of ships taking routes that previously were frozen and not traversable.
The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. Several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution in meetings this week with international shipping regulators.
Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun’s heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest warming place on Earth. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.
“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” said Sian Prior, lead adviser for the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits focused on the Arctic and shipping. “We need to regulate emissions and black carbon, in particular. Both are completely unregulated in the Arctic.”
In December, France, Germany, the Solomon Islands and Denmark proposed that the International Maritime Organization require ships traveling in Arctic waters to use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals. The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and the geographic area it would apply to — all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week and possibly another committee in April.
A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impacts so far, partly because of loopholes.
Concerns about shipping pollution are overshadowed by geopolitics
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.
In recent months, Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster US security have raised many issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.
Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it’s hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around such regulations. Iceland is a good example. While the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That is because the fishing industry, one of the country’s most important, holds huge sway.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity,” said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.
Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted resistance.
“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he said.
The country has not taken a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with regard to its purpose and basic content,” but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.
Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions both rise
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are traveling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37 percent, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111 percent.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.
It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.
Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven some companies to pledge to stay away — at least for now.
“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” wrote Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”
The increase in marine Arctic traffic, which received increased attention as President Donald Trump pushed for the United States to take over Greenland, has come with a heavy environmental cost: black carbon, or soot, that spews from ships and makes the ice melt even faster. Several countries are making a case for ships in the Arctic to use cleaner fuels that cause less pollution in meetings this week with international shipping regulators.
Glaciers, snow and ice covered in the soot emitted by ships have less ability to reflect the sun. Instead, the sun’s heat is absorbed, helping to make the Arctic the fastest warming place on Earth. In turn, melting Arctic sea ice can affect weather patterns around the world.
“It ends up in a never-ending cycle of increased warming,” said Sian Prior, lead adviser for the Clean Arctic Alliance, a coalition of nonprofits focused on the Arctic and shipping. “We need to regulate emissions and black carbon, in particular. Both are completely unregulated in the Arctic.”
In December, France, Germany, the Solomon Islands and Denmark proposed that the International Maritime Organization require ships traveling in Arctic waters to use “polar fuels,” which are lighter and emit less carbon pollution than the widely used maritime fuels known as residuals. The proposal includes steps that companies would take to comply and the geographic area it would apply to — all ships traveling north of the 60th parallel. The proposal was expected to be presented to the IMO’s Pollution Prevention and Response Committee this week and possibly another committee in April.
A 2024 ban on using a type of residual known as heavy fuel oil in the Arctic has had only modest impacts so far, partly because of loopholes.
Concerns about shipping pollution are overshadowed by geopolitics
The push to reduce black carbon, which studies have shown has a warming impact 1,600 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year span, is happening at a time of conflicting interests, both internationally and among the countries that have coastlines in the Arctic.
In recent months, Trump’s periodic comments about the need to “own” Greenland to bolster US security have raised many issues, from Greenland’s sovereignty to the future of the NATO alliance. Pollution and other environmental issues in the Arctic have taken a backseat.
Trump, who has called climate change a “con job,” has also pushed back against global policies aimed at fighting it. Last year, the IMO was expected to adopt new regulations that would have imposed carbon fees on shipping, which supporters said would have pushed companies to use cleaner fuels and electrify fleets where possible. Then Trump intervened, lobbying hard for nations to vote no. The measure was postponed for a year, its prospects at best uncertain. Given that, it’s hard to see the IMO making fast progress on the current proposal to limit black carbon in the Arctic.
Even inside Arctic nations, which are most impacted by black carbon and other shipping pollution, there are internal tensions around such regulations. Iceland is a good example. While the country is a world leader in green technologies such as carbon capture and the use of thermal energies for heating, conservationists say the country has made less progress on regulating pollution in its seas. That is because the fishing industry, one of the country’s most important, holds huge sway.
“The industry is happy with profits, unhappy with the taxes and not engaged in issues like climate or biodiversity,” said Arni Finnsson, board chair of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association.
Finnsson added that the costs of using cleaner fuels or electrifying fleets have also prompted resistance.
“I think the government is waking up, but they still have to wait for the (fishing) industry to say yes,” he said.
The country has not taken a position on the pending polar fuels proposal. In a statement, Iceland’s Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate said the proposal was “positive with regard to its purpose and basic content,” but that further study was needed. The statement added that Iceland supports stronger measures to counter shipping emissions and reduce black carbon.
Arctic ship traffic and black carbon emissions both rise
Soot pollution has increased in the Arctic as cargo ships, fishing boats and even some cruise liners are traveling more in the waters that connect the northernmost parts of Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the United States.
Between 2013 and 2023, the number of ships entering waters north of the 60th parallel increased by 37 percent, according to the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum made up of the eight countries with territory in the Arctic. In that same period, the total distance traversed by ships in the Arctic increased 111 percent.
Black carbon emissions have also increased. In 2019, 2,696 metric tons of black carbon was emitted from ships north of the 60th parallel compared with 3,310 metric tons in 2024, according to a study by Energy and Environmental Research Associates. The study found that fishing boats were the biggest source of black carbon.
It also found that the 2024 ban on heavy fuel oil would only result in a small reduction in black carbon. Waivers and exceptions allow some ships to continue using it until 2029.
Environmental groups and concerned countries see regulating ship fuel as the only way to realistically reduce black carbon. That is because getting nations to agree to limit traffic would likely be impossible. The lure of fishing, resource extraction and shorter shipping distances is too great. Ships can save days on some trips between Asia and Europe by sailing through the Arctic.
Still, the path known as the Northern Sea Route is only traversable a few months of the year, and even then ships must be accompanied by icebreakers. Those dangers, combined with Arctic pollution concerns, have driven some companies to pledge to stay away — at least for now.
“The debate around the Arctic is intensifying, and commercial shipping is part of that discussion,” wrote Søren Toft, CEO of Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world’s largest container shipping company, in a LinkedIn post last month. “Our position at MSC is clear. We do not and will not use the Northern Sea Route.”
Latest updates
Recommended
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.