US Ally Sends Strong Warning to China
China's efforts to expand its sphere of influence in its own region and beyond are part of its "political DNA" and a growing number of countries are coalescing against it, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro told Newsweek in an interview.
Following a tense exchange with Chinese officials at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Asia's premier defense summit, Teodoro called Beijing "the cause of instability".
Newsweek contacted the Chinese Foreign Ministry by email with a request for comment.
Teodoro's comments reflect the toughening stance by the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. over China's claims in its exclusive economic zone.
China claims up to 90 percent of the South China Sea as its territory, citing what it calls historical rights within its self-declared nine-dash line-a boundary that overlaps with the maritime claims of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and self-ruling Taiwan.
Footage released by the Philippines has shown the Chinese coast guard using ramming maneuvers and water cannon attacks that Manila said left Philippine servicemen injured.
A Hague-based arbitral tribunal dismissed China's dashed-line claims in a 2016 decision Beijing rejected as invalid.
Beijing's agenda is rooted in its leadership structure, Teodoro told Newsweek on Sunday. "That is to extend the sphere of influence of dynastic politics of whatever nature, and it is within their DNA to be that-their political DNA."
"The impression of other countries is that of weariness, caution, and not comfort. Even those who engage with them fully do not fully trust China."
Still, China remains a major trade partner for some 150 countries, according to Beijing's customs administration-and for most of Southeast Asia-a fact Teodoro acknowledged has likely muted some nations' responses.
"But this has got to stop somewhere. And the countries that are standing up are coalescing against China," he said. "And if they [China] do not notice this [...] and spin the narrative as it being to contain their rightful place, then they're just fooling themselves."
He expects "more of the same" from Beijing. The Philippines is therefore working to form an international coalition to increase deterrence, he added, likening this to erecting "a strong fence."
China's actions in the South China Sea have also been met with strong protests from Washington and several Asian-Pacific and European nations.
Adding to tensions are alleged espionage operations near military installations, mass cyberattack campaigns, and unsafe military encounters reported by U.S. allies in international waters.
Deterrence of China would take two forms, Teodoro said: "building up capability resilience" and fostering "international resonance that will condemn their activities."
During his remarks in a Shangri-La panel on Sunday, Teodoro was challenged by two senior Chinese colonels, who asked whether the Philippines would engage with China on friendly terms or choose to play the part of a U.S. proxy.
Teodoro thanked the officials for "propaganda spiels disguised as questions," a barb that drew applause from attendees. He said the "deficit of trust" in China remains the largest obstacle to a solution in the South China Sea, adding that a nation that "represses its own people" is not to be trusted.
A breakthrough in the South China Sea dispute remains unlikely, with both China and the Philippines firmly entrenched. The fact that the Philippines is a U.S. treaty ally makes it a potential flashpoint for global conflict at a time of tension between Washington and Beijing on numerous fronts.
Related Articles
Map Tracks Chinese Aircraft Carrier Near US AlliesChina Says US Violated Trade Truce With Three MovesUS Announces 'Game Changer' Missile Upgrade to Rival ChinaMap Shows China's Arms Sales Footprint Around the World
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Can Elon Musk get Tesla back on track? Here are four road bumps
After a tumultuous months-long period by President Trump's side, Elon Musk is turning his attention back to his companies, including the stumbling electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc. Musk announced on X last week that his time as a special government employee was over. Tesla investors welcomed the news, hoping that Musk's departure from Washington would boost his car company's reputation and lagging performance. Since Musk began his role leading the White House advisory team called the Department of Government Efficiency in January, Tesla's stock has fallen roughly 12%. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $332, down 3.5%. The Austin, Texas-based company — which has a significant manufacturing operation in Fremont, Calif., and is the dominant EV company in the state — has been the subject of protests and vandalism as Musk, the company's chief executive, aligned himself with Trump and made controversial spending cuts on behalf of the federal government. The brand damage spread outside the U.S. to Europe, where monthly sales in 32 countries fell nearly 50% in April. 'It was very important for Musk to end this chapter and start working on Tesla's next stage of growth,' Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said. 'Now he can get back to what he's supposed to be doing.' As the executive shifts his focus back to Tesla, here are four challenges experts say he must tackle: By associating himself with the president and the Trump administration's erratic actions, Musk alienated a large swath of his customers. Many Tesla drivers are liberal-leaning, industry analysts said, and were drawn to the company's environmental mission to take gas cars off the road. In protest over Musk's activities, some Tesla drivers, including celebrities, began selling or getting rid of their vehicles. Others sported new bumper stickers that said, 'I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.' In February, Tesla topped the list of brands that lost the most resale value year over year, according to data provided by Karl Brauer, an analyst with The price of a used Tesla Model S and Model Y each dropped by about 16% in February from a year earlier. 'Price is a reflection of supply and demand,' Brauer said. 'So it could be that nobody wants to buy them anymore, or that there's a massive influx of them available, or both.' Now that he's left Washington, Musk will have to prove that his attention is on Tesla and that he isn't prioritizing political agendas. Ives estimated that about 5% to 10% of the brand damage sustained during Musk's stint in the capital will be permanent. 'Tesla has become a political symbol around the world and that's not a good thing,' said Ives, who has an 'outperform' rating on Tesla's stock. 'But there are much brighter days ahead now that Musk is no longer in the White House.' Musk has made lofty promises for years about the capabilities of Tesla's self-driving technology and plans for a robotaxi service. Though he has often over-exaggerated his progress, Musk has taken important steps toward commercializing autonomous driving technology. The future of his company depends on whether he can follow through, experts said. 'Musk's top priority should be autonomy and robotics,' Ives said. 'With these technologies, I believe Tesla's market cap could reach $2 trillion.' The company is currently valued at just over $1 trillion. According to claims Musk has made, Tesla drivers will one day be able to sleep in their car as it drives them across the country. Tesla's robotaxis will roam city streets, and humanoid robots dubbed Optimus will perform everyday tasks. Brauer compared the emergence of autonomous driving technology to a change on the scale of the internet or smartphones. But it's still far off, he said. Although the driverless taxi company Waymo is already operating in a few cities including Santa Monica, it could take 10 to 15 years for the technology to become widely accessible and integrated into society, Brauer said. Tesla remains the dominant force in the electric vehicle market, but rapidly increasing competition from traditional carmakers and other EV manufacturers have thinned sales, Brauer said. Major manufacturers including Ford and Chevy have released lines of their own electric vehicles, while promising startups such as Irvine-based Rivian have cut into Tesla's market share. At the same time, demand for electric vehicles is plateauing as the market gets saturated, Brauer said. Tesla's profit plummeted 71% in the first quarter to $409 million as the company faced a flurry of setbacks, including a falloff in automotive sales and rising competition. To keep up and remain viable, Tesla will have to reassess aspects of its business model. 'Many people, I think including Musk himself, have realized that the current business model is pretty much played out,' Brauer said. 'He's not going to substantially increase his revenue and his profit selling these same electric cars.' Tesla could receive a boost in sales if it successfully launched an affordable model accessible to more customers, but despite rumors and claims by executives, a release date has not been announced. The company could be further hurt by the loss of a $7,500 federal electric vehicle credit, which encourages sales and is likely to be eliminated by the Trump administration. While chargers for electric vehicles are ubiquitous in many parts of California, infrastructure is lacking throughout large areas of the country — and that's a problem. For the U.S. to rely more heavily on EVs, significant progress has to be made on the network of charging stations, Brauer said. Finding a time and place to charge is an obstacle for many Tesla drivers and limits the range of customers Tesla can reach. The lack of a fully comprehensive charging network would also hinder Musk's plans to operate a nationwide robotaxi service, Brauer said. In California, many chargers are broken or have been intentionally damaged by protesters.
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hot shot lawyer joins fight to save Massapequa ‘Chiefs' name out of love for hometown: ‘That's our identity'
A high-powered lawyer joined the fight to keep the Massapequa Chiefs name and dissolve a state ban on Native American imagery in schools — and he worked pro bono out of hometown pride. Nashville, Tennessee-based Oliver Roberts, who grew up in town before graduating from Harvard Law, stepped up in the 11th hour to join a reinvigorated legal battle against the Empire State's logo ban. 'I think Massapequa is a great place, great people — a place of great values. I just thought it was my way of being able to give back,' Roberts, who played soccer and basketball in the Massapequa school system as a boy, told The Post. Advertisement 4 Former Massapequa athlete turned Harvard Law graduate, Oliver Roberts, is joining the fight in the court battle against New York State to keep his hometown's Chiefs team name. Courtesy of Oliver Roberts 'That's what this is really all about — the state attacking towns like Massapequa, which just are towns that care about their local values,' said Roberts, a 29-year-old constitutional lawyer who successfully took on the IRS twice in court. Roberts kept up with the Massapequa school district's initial, lengthy lawsuit against the state Board of Regents after it imposed the ban in 2023, complete with threats of the funding penalties if schools didn't comply. Advertisement The Chiefs had faced their case getting dismissed in court in March, but the town sent an SOS to President Trump, who deployed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to intervene on behalf of the close South Shore community. 'LONG LIVE THE MASSAPEQUA CHIEFS!' the POTUS declared in April. Roberts, who previously sat on the Massapequa district's finance subcommittee, felt a call to action. Advertisement He reached out to former school board member Gary Baldinger, a noteworthy Massapequa high alum who also played for the Kansas City Chiefs, with a simple text: 'How can I help out?' Roberts worked pro bono for weeks to file an amended lawsuit ahead of a June deadline on behalf of the district, which has said rebranding would cost taxpayers $1 million. Now with a long legal road ahead, Roberts is on the 'Pequa payroll and is playing for the Chiefs again, this time in the courthouse In May, he and the school also penned a letter to McMahon, asking for further intervention, a referral to the US Department of Justice — and even a federal funding cut for New York State. Advertisement McMahon toured the high school on Friday. 4 Roberts told The Post, 'I think Massapequa is a great place, great people — a place of great values. I just thought it was my way of being able to give back.' AP 'You've got the Huguenots, we've got the Highlanders, we've got the Scotsman. Why is that not considered in any way racist?' McMahon asked. The secretary said she would take the case to the DOJ as a Title VI violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if New York didn't voluntarily back down. Roberts agreed with McMahon's stance. 'It's clearly attacking just one group on the basis of race and national origin — any other race or ethnicity is totally unattacked by this regulation,' he said. 4 The town of Massapequa sent an SOS to President Donald Trump, who later sent Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to intervene on behalf of the close-knit South Shore community. Heather Khalifa for the NY Post Chief justice The new lawsuit also touches on other federal legalities, such as Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce between the states and Native American tribes, he explained. Advertisement Massapequa has entered into a contract with the Native American Guardians Association, a group that joined McMahon at the school in support, to allow use of the Chiefs likeness following the 2023 ban. 'We're arguing that the arbitrary cut-off deadline [of 2023] is unconstitutional and discriminates against indigenous tribes' right to contract,' Roberts added, saying this should 'invalidate' the Board of Regents initiative. On top of all that, Roberts, who played as a Chief for Berner Middle School and Unqua Elementary, firmly believes getting rid of the name does a disservice to the Massapequa youth. 4 A social media post made by Trump in April said, 'LONG LIVE THE MASSAPEQUA CHIEFS!' Instagram/realdonaldtrump Advertisement 'I've never seen anyone disrespect it. It's always like a point of pride…We're the Chiefs. That's our identity, we proudly wore it on our jerseys,' he said. 'We were often the winning team. That added to the fact that we just really respected the name and felt like it was part of our winning culture.' Now, Roberts is planning to take that victorious reputation inside the courtroom with an update expected around July. 'We're very, very confident we're going to prevail in this matter for Massapequa,' he said.
