Iraq assumes the presidency of the Arab Summit from Bahrain
Baghdad-INA
Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani handed over the presidency of the 34th Arab Summit to President Abdullatif Rashid on Saturday.
Al-Zayani stressed in a speech he delivered during the 43rd session of the Arab Summit, which was followed by the Iraqi News Agency (INA), that "the summit is being held today in Baghdad amid challenges that require all Arab countries to find appropriate solutions to ensure the security of the region and ensure the safety of maritime navigation."
He pointed out that "the previous summit, chaired by the State of Bahrain, emphasized the need to support the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people's right to establish a state with full membership in the United Nations."
He explained that "the proposed recovery plan for Gaza must receive priority during the current summit, along with the need to adhere to the ceasefire agreements in the Strip and release all detainees and prisoners."
Al-Zayani highlighted the importance of utilizing human resources in Arab countries to establish development projects that achieve sustainable development goals in Arab countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
2 hours ago
- Shafaq News
New Mideast diplomacy: Netanyahu pushes for direct talks with Syria
Shafaq News/ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to initiate direct negotiations with Syria's new government under US mediation, Axios reported, citing two Israeli officials. Netanyahu presented the proposal to US Envoy Tom Barrack during a recent meeting in Jerusalem, aiming to explore normalization, which, if formalized, would mark the first direct engagement between Israel and Syria since 2011, before the outbreak of the Syrian civil war. Barrack, a senior advisor to President Donald Trump, had visited Damascus days earlier, where he met with transitional Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and reopened the US ambassador's residence—closed since 2012. He described the Israel-Syria conflict as 'a solvable problem' and urged starting with a non-aggression agreement to establish diplomatic momentum. Al-Sharaa, a former rebel commander, assumed power following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime in late 2024. His transitional government, formed under an interim constitution adopted in March, has aligned itself closely with Washington and Riyadh. Israeli officials now view al-Sharaa's orientation as a diplomatic opportunity. 'It is better for us that the Syrian government is close to the US and Saudi Arabia,' one senior official told Axios. Initial communications took place via intermediaries but have since progressed to direct meetings in third countries. Officials described al-Sharaa as more pragmatic than expected and emphasized his independence from Turkish influence —an important factor for Israel, which has long opposed Ankara's military presence and backing of Syrian opposition factions. During Barrack's visit, Israel outlined key requirements for any agreement: - Withdrawal of Iranian, Hezbollah, and Turkish military forces from Syria. - Full demilitarization of southern Syria. - Reactivation of the 1974 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) with the inclusion of US troops. - Binding non-aggression guarantees along the border. UNDOF's monitoring role had eroded during the civil war, but Israeli officials now propose expanding its mandate under a new security framework. The future of the Golan Heights—a territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and formally recognized as Israeli by the Trump administration in 2019—will be central to any talks. While previous Syrian governments demanded full Israeli withdrawal, Israeli officials believe Damascus may adopt a more flexible approach under al-Sharaa's leadership, especially given his alignment with the US.
Memri
3 hours ago
- Memri
After The U.S. Lifts Sanctions On Syria, The New Syrian Regime Navigates U.S. Demands That Endanger Its Future
On May 13, 2025, during his visit to Saudi Arabia, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he would be "ordering the cessation of sanctions on Syria" that had been in effect since 1979, "in order to give them a chance at greatness."[1] The next day, May 14, Trump met in Riyadh with Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, in the first meeting of an American and Syrian president in 25 years, signifying the beginning of renewed diplomatic relations between the two countries. In accordance with Trump's announcement, on May 23 U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke about lifting the sanctions included in the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019,[2] for a 180-day waiver of mandatory sanctions of the act to allow "stability-driving investments and [to] advance Syria's recovery and reconstruction efforts."[3] The same day, the U.S. Treasury Department issued immediate sanctions relief for Syria, and that it "also authorizes all transactions with the new Government of Syria, and with certain blocked persons"[4] – among them Al-Sharaa, who prior to seizing control of the country was known as Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani and headed Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), an organization designated terrorist by a number of countries.[5] The U.S. decision to lift the sanctions on Syria came about thanks largely to Saudi Arabia, as Trump himself stated in his announcement: "Oh, what I do for the [Saudi] Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman]."[6] Later, he said that he had decided on the move after talks with bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.[7] It should be noted that Trump had met with Al-Sharaa in the presence of bin Salman and with the online participation of Erdogan. Trump meets with Al-Sharaa in Riyadh (Source: May 14, 2025) Following the December 8, 2024 fall of the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Qatar, have worked towards getting the U.S. to lift its sanctions on Syria. This is on the grounds that their lifting will allow the country to rebuild – an enterprise in which all three will necessarily be involved, particularly Qatar and Turkey, which sponsored Al-Sharaa even before the removal of the Assad regime. The American move to lift the sanctions came as a surprise in the region, and even in the U.S. administration.[8] Since HTS's takeover of Syria, and despite the significant progress in Syria-U.S. relations, including with several direct Syria-U.S. meetings, it was thought that the American administration would proceed with caution vis-à-vis Syria, and would make decisions in accordance with the new regime's actions on the ground. This is particularly true in light of HTS's jihadi history under Al-Sharaa, and its U.S. designation as a terrorist organization until its recent disbandment.[9] In March 2025, the Trump administration gave Syria a document with eight demands, and American officials have reiterated, including in the days prior to Trump's announcement on lifting the sanctions, that any decision on lifting the sanctions and normalizing relations with Syria would be conditional on the fulfillment of these demands.[10] Furthermore, the Al-Sharaa government had already made considerable progress in tackling these demands prior to the announcement, and the sanctions were lifted before they were fully met.[11] It should be noted that in reports since March, and also in official U.S. statements, descriptions of the demands, and how many there are, vary, so it is not completely clear what is required of the Al-Sharaa government. One of the U.S.'s main demands is that Syria remove foreign jihad fighters from senior positions in the Syrian army, and even expel them from the country. To date, however, the Syrian government has been dragging its feet on this issue, and has already appointed some of them to command positions in the army – although, according to a number of reports, it has agreed to freeze such new appointments. At the same time, in an attempt to calm fears in both the region and in the West about these fighters, the Al-Sharaa government has announced several times that they will not pose any threat to any other country, and Syria is at the same time examining the solution of giving them Syrian citizenship. Another American demand, that can be considered only a recommendation, is strengthening relations with Israel and joining the Abraham Accords. Against this backdrop, it was reported that a round of direct and indirect Syria-Israel talks was held recently. The U.S. is trying to present Syrian openness to peace with Israel, but the Al-Sharaa government is downplaying the issue and it appears that at this stage it will act to quiet tensions vis-à-vis Israel but without normalizing relations with it. Billboard in Syria expressing thanks to President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for lifting the sanctions ( May 14, 2025) This report will review the conditions set by the U.S. for Syria in exchange for lifting the sanctions, the attempt to advance a Syria-Israel calm, and the difficulties encountered by the Syrian regime in meeting the U.S. demands to remove foreign jihad fighters affiliated with it from senior positions and to expel them from the country. The Lack Of Clarity vis-à-vis The Conditions Set By The U.S. For Lifting The Sanctions On Syria President Trump's announcement of the lifting of the sanctions on Syria contradicted previous American announcements and moves[12] that reflected a cautious approach to the Al-Sharaa government and the conditioning of the advancement of this relationship, including the lifting of sanctions, on the execution of confidence-building measures. At the March 17, 2025 Brussels IX Conference on "Standing With Syria: Meeting The Needs For A Successful Transition," with key regional and international partners together with the Syrian Arab Republic,[13] the U.S. gave the Syrian government eight demands to be met, in exchange for which the U.S. could ease the sanctions on Syria. The demands as published by the Saudi magazine Al-Majala[14] indicate that the Al-Sharaa government had already begun to move ahead on most of them, as part of its attempts to get the sanctions removed. There were even reports about American satisfaction with Syria's handling of the following demands: Allowing access to all Syrian chemical weapons sites and plans Assuming responsibility for detention centers holding ISIS prisoners and camps in which their families are held in northeast Syria, controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, comprising largely Kurds supported by the U.S. Cooperating with the international coalition against ISIS led by the U.S. Assisting the USA "in locating and returning USA citizens or their remains. The families of Austin Tice, Majd Kamalmaz, and Kayla Mueller must have closure."[15] Another U.S. demand met by the Al-Sharaa government was a ban on the activity of Palestinian factions in the country, and expulsion of their members. The Syrian government took steps against the Palestinian factions that were loyal to the Assad regime, including arresting their operatives, taking over their commands, and banning them from conducting military activity but not humanitarian activity.[16] Against this backdrop, it was reported that most of the leaders of these factions had left Syria.[17] With regard to the demand to prevent Iran from situating itself in Syria and to classify its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Hizbullah as terror organizations, the Al-Sharaa government declared several times that Iran and Hizbullah have no remaining presence in Syria[18] and that it has no objections in principle to designating them both as terror organizations. The two remaining demands are more problematic for the Syrian government. The first is allowing the U.S. to carry out attacks in Syria against any element that it considers a threat to U.S. national security; however, this is a matter of violation of Syrian sovereignty. The Al-Sharaa government noted that there is a need to arrive at mutual understandings on this.[19] The second is to refrain from appointing foreign fighters to senior command roles, and, according to some reports, also to expel them from the country.[20] This is complicated for the Al-Sharaa government, which owes these fighters a debt of gratitude for the help they gave it in its war against the Assad regime. It should be emphasized that Trump's announcement of a "cessation" of the sanctions, and its aftermath, is notable for the lack of uniformity in announcements by American elements regarding the content and number of the administration's' demands.[21] The easing of the sanctions prior to the Al-Sharaa government's meeting of the demands also raised the question of whether the American "demands" had been downgraded to "recommendations." This was reflected in White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt's statement that in his meeting with Al-Shara, President Trump had "urged" Al-Sharaa to carry out some actions, but had not "demanded" this.[22] Likewise, Michael "Mitch" Mitchell, the Dubai Hub Deputy Director and Arabic Language Spokesperson Office of International Media Engagement in the State Department's Office of International Media Engagement, told Al-Hurrah on May 16 that the U.S. had received no guarantees from the Al-Sharaa government that it would meet these demands, and that the U.S. had not even requested such a guarantee.[23] In an appearance on May 19 on the Syrian Al-Ikhbaria TV channel, which is affiliated with the Al-Sharaa government, he only spoke about the U.S.'s "preferences" in Syria.[24] At the same time, this does not appear to mean that the U.S. has withdrawn its demands. This was also the assessment of many Syrian writers. Thus, Syrian writer Ali Qassem stated, "The decision [to lift the sanctions] was not just a prize for Syria, but an agreement that is conditional upon demands."[25] Likewise, Syrian writer Rateb Sh'abu wrote, "We will pay the price for [the lifting of the sanctions], since in the political world no one hands out gifts, charity, or profits for free to others."[26] Ahmed Mazher Saado, who writes for a Syrian newspaper, even assessed that "Uncle Sam may continue to send more American, and necessarily also Israeli, demands and conditions, so that the path and the steps to lift the sanctions will remain valid and will be carried out without legal or political disruption."[27] Syrians celebrate the lifting of the sanctions: "Thank you Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey" (Source: May 13, 2025) Syrian President Al-Sharaa: Indirect Contacts With Israel, Reports Of Direct Israel-Syria Meetings Amid the lack of clarity regarding the content and number of the demands the U.S. submitted to the Syrian government, one U.S. demand – or condition – stands out as particularly unclear: strengthening Syria's relations with Israel and joining the Abraham Accords for normalizing relations with it, under U.S. auspices. President Trump himself noted, "I told him [Al-Sharaa], 'I hope you're going to join when it's straightened out.' He said, 'Yes.'" Trump added, however, "But they have a lot of work to do [yet]."[28] The relationship with Israel is a sensitive issue for the new Syrian regime. As Al-Sharaa seized power in Syria, Israel expanded its attacks inside the country and destroyed most of the Syrian army's military infrastructure. Its forces also took control of the buffer zone in southern Syria and began to expand it, and Israel also announced that it would protect the Syrian Druze from the Al-Sharaa government. This move was seen in Syria as an attempt to divide the country.[29] Nevertheless, with the U.S.'s encouragement, there have been reports of indirect and even direct contacts between the two sides. It was reported that indirect Syria-Israel talks on security and intelligence affairs, with UAE mediation, began following Al-Sharaa's April 13, 2025 UAE visit.[30] The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on direct Syria-Israel contacts, with a Syrian delegation visiting Israel in late April.[31] In addition, there were reports of Syria-Israel talks in Azerbaijan and Jordan, as well as direct security meetings between the sides in the border area between the two countries, including in territory under Israeli control.[32] During his May 7 visit to France, Al-Sharaa confirmed that "indirect negotiations are underway [with Israel] via mediators in order to calm the situation and prevent a slide into loss of control among the sides."[33] In this context, there was a noticeable gap between the U.S.'s optimistic depiction of Syria-Israel relations and how they were downplayed by the Al-Sharaa government. One striking example of this was the diverse coverage of statements by U.S. Secretary of State Rubio on May 15, following his Turkey meeting with his Turkish and Syrian counterparts. On its website, the U.S. State Department said that Rubio had "welcomed the Syrian government's calls for peace with Israel,"[34] and said that the Syrians had "expressed an interest in being at peace with all of their neighbors, including Israel."[35] In contrast, the official Syrian news agency SANA quoted Rubio as saying that "the Syrian government wants peace with all its neighbors" but did not mention Israel by name.[36] Furthermore, in her May 14 post on X following President Trump's meeting with Al-Sharaa, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt had written that Trump had "urged" Al-Sharaa to "sign onto the Abraham Accords with Israel" and that "President Al-Sharaa affirmed his commitment to the 1974 disengagement with Israel."[37] However, the Syrian Foreign Ministry's announcement of the meeting did not mention relations with Israel at all.[38] In its commentary, the UAE daily Al-Arab clarified that should Al-Sharaa accept Trump's offer to join the Abraham Accords, he would receive American recognition and a full lifting of the sanctions on Syria. At the same time, however, he would risk losing his legitimacy among a large part of the Syrian public, especially among the Syrian forces, who see Israel as an enemy and normalization with it as a betrayal. According to the daily's assessment, Al-Sharaa will choose a middle path of not explicitly rejecting Trump's proposal but also not fully accepting it.[39] Trump's support for Al-Sharaa also impacted Israel, which cut back on its attacks in Syria in May and softened its tone vis-à-vis the Syrian government. As part of this, on May 23 a senior Israeli official told Al-Arabiya TV that Syria was an important country and that its joining the Abraham Accords would change the situation in the region. He added that meetings between Israeli and Syrian government representatives under Turkey's auspices were positive and that the Syrian government had made gestures towards Israel which would be responding in kind.[40] These meetings appear to have taken place in Azerbaijan. The U.S. frees Syria from the sanctions (Source:Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, May 16, 2025 ) Demand To Expel Foreign Jihad Fighters From Syria; Al-Sharaa: They Will Not Threaten Any Country The presence in Syria of jihadi HTS foreign fighters greatly concerns the U.S. and the West in general, as well as the Arab countries. In Syria too there is concern, because of the threat they pose to the country's stability[41] and the possibility that they will use Syria as a base for jihadi operations against other countries, especially since some of them are wanted in their home countries. There are no official figures on these fighters, but estimates indicate that they number several thousand. Many are Uyghurs and Chechens, along with Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians, Arabs from the Gulf states, Europeans, and others.[42] The U.S.'s demand regarding these fighters poses a complicated challenge for the Al-Sharaa government, since it esteems the fighters for joining HTS during the years of war in Syria and for their assistance to the group in the campaign that brought down the Assad regime. In late December 2024, the Syrian government even promoted six of them as officers and appointed several to other senior military positions.[43] The Syrians appear to be approaching this issue by moving slowly on it. In its response to the U.S. on the matter of dealing with the eight American demands, the Syrians said that the foreign fighters issue "requires a broader consultative session."[44] Although they announced that promoting more foreign officers had been suspended, after six were previously promoted, they did not say whether the six had been demoted nor what, if any, steps would be taken in this regard.[45] In April 2025, Al-Sharaa told The New York Times that his government would consider giving Syrian citizenship for foreign fighters who had lived in Syria for many years and "who have stuck beside the revolution."[46] In an attempt to calm fears regarding these fighters, Al-Sharaa stressed on several occasions that they would not be allowed to use Syrian territory to threaten other countries. For example, at a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron during his May 7 Paris visit, Al-Sharaa clarified: "We have emphasized to all the countries in the world that these fighters are committed to Syrian law and will pose no threat to any country."[47] Beyond that, there is not much information about the Syrian government's handling of the issue of foreign fighters. According to the UAE daily Al-Arab, the Al-Shara government has frozen the activity of important military commanders who are foreign, and it is expected that eventually, when the time is right, the foreign fighters will be sent back to their home countries.[48] The Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that the Syrian government has asked several foreign fighters not to appear on social media in military uniform or to say that they are soldiers in the Syrian army.[49] Official U.S. statements that followed President Trump's decision to lift sanctions show some indication of Syrian progress in handling this matter, although what exactly is being done is not known for sure. Although Syrian Foreign Minister As'ad Al-Shibani met with senior U.S. officials in New York on April 29, and it was reported that he was told by the U.S. that Syria's measures on the issue of foreign fighters were insufficient.[50] U.S. Secretary of State Rubio struck a more positive tone when he said during his visit to Turkey on May 15 that the Syrian government "has expressed interest in driving out foreign fighters and terrorists."[51] In addition, Trump's special envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack, after meeting with Al-Sharaa, commended, on May 24, the Syrian president's steps taken regarding foreign fighters.[52] On June 2, Reuters reported that the Al-Sharaa government intended to integrate 3,500 foreign fighters into the Syrian army, and Barrack confirmed that there were understandings with the U.S. on this matter.[53] * O. Peri is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.
Memri
3 hours ago
- Memri
The Philippines Position In The South China Sea; There Cannot Be Dialogue When China Habitually Peddles Lies
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) recently concluded its annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.[1] The Shangri-La Dialogue is widely regarded as the premier defense summit for the Indo-Pacific region. With representatives from 47 countries in attendance, the forum provides a platform for defense ministers, military leaders, and senior officials to discuss regional security challenges. Philippine Secretary of Defense Gilberto Teodoro was among the keynote speakers of the event. In his address, Teodoro outlined the Philippines' position on three key issues: the evolving role and limitations of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations; the Philippine's position amid the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry; and the reasons why the Philippines' acts the way it does amid China's illegal territorial grab in the South China Sea. During the International Institute for Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue 2025, which took place on May 30-June 1, 2025 in Singapore, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. responded to questions raised by Chinese delegates concerning maritime tensions in the region. He said that the questions were in fact "disguised" propaganda and he highlighted the increasing gap between China's statements and its actions in the West Philippine Sea. Video footage of the session was posted to Facebook by the Philippine Department of National Defense on June 2, 2025. (See MEMRI TV clip No. 12063, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. At Shangri-La Conference: The Gap Between China's Words And Actions In The West Philippine Sea Is Growing, June 2, 2025) The State Of Multilateral Institutions For the past 80 years, the rules-based international order upheld by the United Nations and other multilateral institutions has fostered global stability that allowed nations to thrive in relative peace. In Asia, it paved the way for the post-war recovery and economic success of Japan, South Korea, and those in Southeast Asia. But the world is changing. Global interconnectedness – through migration, trade, and security alliances – has never been greater. The war in Ukraine, for example, has driven up energy and commodity prices across Asia. The conflict between Israel and certain terrorist groups in the Arab world has disrupted supply chains around the world. Furthermore, tensions in strategic chokepoints like the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and the South China Sea send ripples through global trade. In today's world, events in one region inevitably have consequences far beyond their borders. Amid recent conflicts and disputes, multilateral institutions have faced increased stress in maintaining peace and security. The mechanisms which were once effective in blocking acts of aggression and in restoring order are no longer as effective as they used to be. This is attributed to gridlocks in decision making, the failure to promote dialogue among disputing parties and the snail's pace by which reforms adapting to change are carried out. Legal and normative gaps are widening in the resolution of territorial disputes, in cybersecurity breaches, in protecting underwater infrastructure, in regulating artificial intelligence, and in the proliferation of lethal autonomous weapons – just to name a few. Under the current system, the inability of multilateral institutions to arrive at peaceful resolutions has become the norm, rather than the exception. This underscores the need for reforms that reflect today's realities. To this, Secretary Teodoro offers three recommendations: -First, enhance inter-regional security cooperation. This can be done by increasing dialogue among regional blocks such as the EU, ASEAN, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on shared security concerns. -Second, establish a revised legal framework, grounded on the rule of law, that is fit-for-purpose for the issues that face us today. Such a legal framework is to be jointly and cooperatively enforced by member countries. -Third, the inordinate veto privilege of powerful countries must be curtailed since its exercise is often a hindrance to the interest of the world at large. The Philippines advocates greater representation of smaller states, particularly in the UN Security Council. The Philippines commits to advocate constructive solutions if and when it is elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2027-2028. In the end, there is no alternative for the rules-based-order to maintain peace, security, and the continued prosperity of the world. We must improve the framework we already have. The Proxy War China sent no top defense officials to the Shangri-La Dialogue.[2] Instead, the Chinese delegation was led by representatives from the National Defense University. Its mission was to inject Chinese propaganda messages into the forum. One of them asked the Philippine Defense Secretary why the Philippines is allowing itself to be a proxy of America amid the U.S.-China "cold war." Secretary Teodoro emphasized that while the U.S.-China rivalry is raging, it must not be made the overarching narrative of all conflicts. Doing so unfairly portrays the legitimate actions of states like the Philippines as being done at the behest of stronger powers. It undermines the agency of smaller states. Secretary Teodoro also reiterated that the Philippine's actions in the South China Sea are not a function of the U.S.-China rivalry. Rather, they are a result of China's overreach in its nine-, ten-, or 11-dash line, which changes according to China's need, which is illegal and has no basis in international law. China's Territorial Grab Another CCP outfit asserted that while Malaysia and Vietnam have disputes with China, both manage their difference through peaceful dialogue, so why couldn't the Philippines do the same? To this, Secretary Teodoro's responded with barbed, elegant clarity. Let me quote him verbatim: "Thank you for the propaganda spiels disguised as questions. First, the comparison between the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. Let us not forget that while we are members of ASEAN, we are [all] sovereign countries, each with their own territorial integrity and sovereignty. And I am sure that if what China is doing to the Philippines is done to Malaysia or to any ASEAN country, you will see a different reaction [from them]. And certainly, as an ASEAN brother, the Philippines will stand up with that ASEAN brother in [their] time of need – in support and in defense of what is international law and UNCLOS. As members of UNCLOS, we are all committed to support it. "On the dialogue with China, unfortunately, in my personal opinion, the fact that the question was asked in the way it was, engenders a deficit of trust in China's words vis-à-vis its actions. "Just look back to 1995 to a place called Mischief Reef.[3] There were a few bamboo structures erected there, and China said that these were temporary havens for fisherfolk. Now you have an artificial military island, heavily militarized. "China says that it has peaceful intentions. Why does it continue to deny the Philippines its rightful provenance under international law and UNCLOS? And as proof of this, we do not stand alone. No country in the world supports the nine dash line claim of China or the idea that waters within this nine dash line are internal waters of China. "Several countries in the world, no less than 50, have joined the Philippines in condemning China's behavior in the South China Sea. None have agreed with China and none has condemned the Philippines for standing up against China in the face of a threat to its territorial integrity and sovereignty for which I thank the members of this chamber right now for your support. "And thus, for dialogue to be effective, it must be coupled with trust. And China has a lot of trust-building to do to be an effective negotiating partner in dispute settlement. We have to call a spade a spade. And that's what we see, and that is the biggest stumbling block to dispute resolution or dialogue with China – that deficit of trust which I think any rational person or any person that is not ideologically biased with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, will agree with me."[4] Chinese Hypocrisy China wants to convey two messages to the world. First, that it indeed possesses sovereign and legal rights over the South China Sea by virtue of its self-conjured non-dash line. Second, that the Philippines is obstructing China from exercising its rights by engaging in legal maneuvers and provocative activities, aided by the United States and other countries that lean toward western doctrine. China cannot have it both ways. It cannot illegally grab the sovereign territories of another nation and also play the victim. It cannot call for dialogue and cooperation when it systematically employs grey-zone tactics like firing laser guns, attacking with water cannons, and illegally boarding Philippine inflatable boats and slashing them with knives. There cannot be dialogue when China habitually peddles lies (e.g., the Mischief Reef narrative)[5] and disinformation (e.g., that the Philippines is acting as a proxy of the United States). There cannot be cooperation when China uses coercion to bully its adversaries into submission. This is the reason why the Philippines acts as it does. It was the lone country, among the many claimants of parts of the South China Sea, with the courage to take China to court and win. It is in the forefront in exposing China's bad behavior. It is leading the way in advocating the rule-based order as a means of settling disputes. Hence, the Philippine's reaction toward China is not one born out of emotion or malevolent intentions. Rather, its reaction is pragmatic with the view of defending its sovereign rights. To sum up, Secretary Teodoro's talk highlighted not only the Philippines' commitment to upholding the rules-based order but also the important role of multilateral institutions in addressing global conflicts. As the world continues to change, it is imperative that multilateral institutions evolve to remain effective. Reform – particularly in enhancing representativeness, adapting legal frameworks to modern realities and fostering meaningful cooperation across regions – is essential to maintaining peace. The Philippines stands ready to contribute to these efforts, anchored in the belief that a stronger, more responsive rules-based order remains the best foundation for lasting peace and shared prosperity. *Andrew J. Masigan is the MEMRI China Media Studies Project Special Advisor. He is a Manila-based economist, businessman, and political columnist for The Philippine Star. Masigan's articles in MEMRI are also published in The Philippine Star.
