Tokyo and Manila issued a joint statement last week announcing the start of talks on the "delimitation" of an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf between Japan and the Philippines. But the area the two countries announced they will "delimit" is east of China's Taiwan island. According to China's domestic law and international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China has an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in this area.

The so-called "maritime delimitation talks" constitute a severe violation of China's maritime rights and interests, UNCLOS and other international laws, and the basic norms governing international relations. The collusion between Japan and the Philippines is both legally groundless and politically provocative.

Against this backdrop, the China Coast Guard's law enforcement patrols in the waters starting on Monday are legitimate and necessary measures to safeguard China's sovereignty and core interests.

The "delimiting" scheme, announced during Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr's visit to Japan — along with the two countries' agreement to expand military cooperation to counter what they described as a "common threat" — only adds further uncertainty to the regional security landscape.

The Philippines suffered some of the worst atrocities of Japanese occupation during World War II. From the Bataan Death March to the destruction of Manila, the historical record is well-documented and beyond dispute. Yet today, some Philippine politicians appear willing to overlook that painful history to embrace a Japan that has made clear that it will ignore the country's wartime legacy.

Under the banner of defending "regional peace" and a "rules-based order", Japanese right-wing forces continue to push for the removal of postwar constraints and remilitarization, challenging the postwar international order.

At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last week, Japan's defense minister shamelessly denied the rise of neo-militarism in his country. Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr went even further, suggesting that Japan has been "unfairly vilified" through what he called the "improper use of history".

What is particularly troubling is Manila's readiness to turn a blind eye to the risk of being used as a strategic pawn in Japan's geopolitical calculus.

Since Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi strained China-Japan ties with her dangerous and erroneous remarks regarding the Taiwan Strait situation on Nov 7, her government has repeatedly added insult to injury by hosting secessionist-minded politicians from China's Taiwan region, conducting provocative military activities near the island under various pretexts, and expanding security partnerships targeting China with other countries.

The proposed "delimitation" talks between Tokyo and Manila are merely the latest manifestation of this trend. They appear designed to draw the Philippines more deeply into Japan's geopolitical agenda and bind Manila to Tokyo's neo-militarist chariot.

The extraordinary lengths to which the Philippine defense chief went at the Shangri-La Dialogue — doing the dirty work for Japan by labeling China as a regional "bully" — reveal the true face of a government that sacrifices the Philippines' interests for the narrow gains of a few politicians.

Such brazen China-bashing raises obvious questions. If China were truly what he claimed it was, would the Philippine Navy's deliberately grounded vessel at China's Ren'ai Reef have remained there for more than a quarter century? Would Manila feel sufficiently secure to host an expanding network of foreign military facilities in close proximity to China? Would the Philippines have stable access to strategic supplies, including chemical fertilizers, the Chinese market and funding, despite its relentless provocations in the South China Sea regarding Chinese territorial waters?

The reality is that Manila understands Beijing is the party that truly seeks stability and peaceful development through cooperation and dialogue. Yet some Philippine politicians appear increasingly willing to exploit that restraint, portraying the creator of frictions as the victim.

This approach is neither prudent nor strategic. By embracing Japan's "maritime boundary delimitation" initiative, the Philippines risks placing itself in a position that primarily serves Tokyo's political objectives rather than its own long-term national interests.

The Tokyo-Manila initiative represents a serious attempt to alter the status quo of the waters unilaterally. Should such actions continue, they will inevitably invite a resolute response from China.

History repeatedly demonstrates that efforts to manufacture geopolitical confrontations rarely unfold as their architects intend. Those who seek to create instability in pursuit of short-term gains may ultimately find themselves bearing the consequences of their own miscalculation.