10月18日到21日，菲律宾总统杜特尔特对中国进行了为期4天的国事访问，与中方签署了13项合作协议，发表了《联合声明》，推动两国关系重回正轨，开启两国发展合作新阶段。正如《联合声明》所指出的，此访具有里程碑式的意义。回想几个月前，中菲还因南海仲裁案闹得不可开交，现如今中菲和好、南海趋稳，个中变化所折射出的问题值得深思。

第一，杜特尔特“转向”是福还是祸？很多美国和日本舆论认为，杜特尔特放弃前任阿基诺三世与中国在南海问题上进行对抗的政策将导致南海局势不稳。如美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）称，这是“菲律宾的中国豪赌”。日本《产经新闻》则通过社论警告杜特尔特说，如果按中国意愿行事，必然加强中国对南海的支配，不仅会损害菲律宾国家利益，也可能成为地区不安定的因素。日本官房长官菅义伟还扬言将敦促菲律宾尊重南海仲裁并与美日合作。显然，这些言论别有用心。让我们回顾一下，南海局势过去6年在阿基诺三世的对抗政策主导下并非趋于平稳而是持续动荡，美国甚至向南海地区派出了双航母舰队。然而，杜特尔特在南海问题上采取对话而不对抗的政策，反而使南海局势趋于平缓。正如澳大利亚战略政策研究所（ASPI）研究员格雷姆·多贝尔所指出的，杜特尔特尽管是个令人抓狂、不按常理出牌的人，但在南海问题上却取得了奇特的效果。至少，美国不用为南海几个岛礁而冒与中国爆发军事冲突的风险。因此，杜特尔特在南海问题上的政策转向，实际上为地区局势稳定作出了贡献，符合中、美、菲以及地区国家的共同利益。

第二，在南海问题上，中国是否可以对话与合作？过去几年，美日等国努力在南海制造这样一种舆论，一是中国意图控制南海；二是对话不仅不能解决争端，反而会鼓励中国进一步扩张；三是域内外国家应联合起来抵制并迫使中国屈服。在此舆论的鼓动下，南海部分声索国放弃2002年《南海各方行为宣言》有关“克制与对话”的承诺，伙同域外国家不断挑起南海事端，导致南海局势持续紧张。近期南海仲裁闹剧落幕与杜特尔特成功访华使这种舆论不攻自破。一方面，南海仲裁案乃至美国派出双航母的军事恐吓不会使中国屈服，因为南海问题关涉中国领土主权，而在主权问题上，外来压力越大只会使中国反抗越强。另一方面，杜特尔特访华成功表明，中国不仅可以而且是愿意对话的对象，不仅没有如美日舆论捕风捉影的那样填造黄岩岛或“得寸进尺以力压人”，反而“出于两国友好情谊愿就有关问题作出妥善安排”。因此，在南海问题上，我们应破除一些错误的观念，真正认识到对抗没有出路，只有对话才能化解争端。

第三，美国应发挥什么样的作用？一直以来，美国领导人不断强调美国对东亚地区稳定的贡献。然而，眼见中国在东南亚影响日增，美就宣称“南海关涉美国利益”，积极介入南海争端，破坏中国与东南亚国家关系。例如，当阿基诺三世上台之初表示将加强对华关系并对地方官员提议废除美菲《部队访问协议》持开放态度后，美国便多次派出高官游说菲律宾，一方面渲染南海局势对菲危害，另一方面承诺给菲大量的军事经济援助，最终导致菲律宾撤换外长，政策转向。中菲关系持续恶化，而美却趁机与菲签署《加强防务合作协议》，扩大了在东南亚地区的军事部署。实际上，美国这几年高举维护“航行自由”和“地区稳定”的旗号，实际上却干着破坏地区稳定的事。作为崛起中的开放型发展中国家，航行自由和东亚稳定对中国要比对美国更重要，中国倡导“一带一路”首先就是要推动国际交流的自由化与便利化。因此，正如美国年轻学者贾里德·麦金尼所指出的，美国应停止将南海主权争端“抽象化”为一场中美之间的“实力较量”或“原则对抗”， 让南海争端回归其原有的面貌，通过声索国之间的真诚对话加以解决。可悲的是，美国还没认识到这一点，就在杜特尔特成功访华之际派出军舰擅闯西沙，唯恐天下不乱。

杜特尔特成功访华体现了地区国家渴望稳定聚力发展的需求，也应有助于打破过去几年一直笼罩南海的各种迷思。域内外国家应正确对待杜特尔特访华所带来的积极效应，共同维护南海地区的和平稳定局面。

From Oct 18 to 21, Philipine President Rodrigo Duterte paid a state visit to China, during which the two countries signed 13 agreements on cooperation, issued a joint communique, pushed bilateral ties back on track and opened a new chapter for their relations. As the joint communique said, the visit was a milestone: Just months back, China and the Philippines were bogged down in a fierce fight over the South China Sea arbitration. The abrupt turn is thus worth serious reflection.

First, is Duterte's “direction change” a blessing or a curse? Many in the United States and Japan believe it would destabilize the South China Sea for Duterte to abandon his predecessor's anti-China approach. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun, for instance, warned Duterte in an editorial that accomodating China will inevitably consolidate China's dominance in the South China Sea, which will not only hurt Philipine national interests, but also disturb regional peace. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said he would urge the Philippines to respect the ruling and cooperate with Japan and the US. Over the past six years, when Benigno Aquino III took a confrontational approach against China, tensions in the South China Sea escalated, instead of being pacified. It is Duterte's resorting to dialogue that has led to the easing of tensions. As Australian ASPI researcher Graeme Dobell pointed out, although Duterte is an annoying man who does not follow regular rules, he has achieved exceptional outcomes on the South China Sea issue. At least the US no longer needs to risk coming into military conflict with China over a couple of isles and reefs there. Therefore, Duterte's policy change on the South China Sea issue has actually contributed to regional peace, and is thus in the common interest of China, the US, the Philippines and other countries in the area.

Second, is dialogue and cooperation with China possible on the South China Sea issue? The US and Japan have been disseminating several misperceptions over the years: 1. China attempts to dominate the South China Sea; 2. instead of resolving disputes, dialogue will encourage China to be more aggressive in territorial expansion; 3. countries in and outside the region should unite against China and press it to surrender. Instigated by such notions, some claimant countries have forsaken their promises of restraint and dialogue under the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea , and ganged up with outsider countries to make troubles. The result has been escalating tensions in the South China Sea. Such misperceptions collapsed in the face of Duterte's successful China visit. On one hand, neither the ruling nor US intimidation have made China succumb. On the contrary, Chinese resistance got stronger as outside pressures mounted. On the other hand, Duterte's successful visit demonostrated that China is not only a willing dialogue partner, it has not conducted reclamation at the Huangyan Island, or bullied the Philippines with might, as Japanese and US media have clamored. Instead, it has pledged to make compromises based on the two countries' traditional friendship. Therefore, on the South China Sea, we should cast aside misgivings and see that there is no way out if the two parties engage in confrontation. Only dialogue can resolve disputes.

Third, what role should the US play? US leaders have always proclaimed an American contribution to peace and stability in East Asia. However, in the wake of China's growing influence in Southeast Asia, the US declared “the South China Sea involves American interests”, actively intervened in South China Sea disputes, and sabotaged China's relations with Southeast Asian nations. For example, in the early days of Aquino's presidency, when he indicated a willingness to enhance ties with China and an open attitude toward local officials' call to renounce the US-Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement, the US dispatched multiple officials to lobby Manila, on one hand exaggerating the South China Sea issue's threat and on the other hand promising massive military, economic aid, eventually pushing it appoint a new foreign minister and change its policy orientation. As China-Philippine relations continued to sour, the US signed an agreement enhancing defense cooperation, expanding military deployment in Southeast Asia. Holding high the banner of preserving “freedom of navigation” and “regional stability”, the US has actually been undermining stability in the area. Freedom of navigation and a stable East Asia is more important to China, a rising, developing country, than to the US. The “Road and Belt” initiative China has proposed is preoccupied with promoting freer, more convenient international exchanges. So, as the young American scholar Jared McKinney has advocated, the US should treat the South China Sea disputes as what they are, and let claimant countries resolves their disputes through sincere dialogue. Sadly, the US has not come to terms with this. It has instead sent warships to the Xisha Archipelago after Duterte's visit.

Duterte's China visit revealed that countries in the region are thirsty for stability, solidarity, and common development, and should be eager to eliminate the various misgivings regarding the South China Sea. Countries in and outside the area should cherish the positive effects of the visit and jointly preserve peace and stability in the South China Sea.