(Text/Observer Network Liu Bai)
The US has just labeled the Philippines as a “model ally”, but voices opposing another US strategic plan have emerged on the streets of Manila.
On August 13th, local time, several groups in the Philippines gathered on Carabao Avenue in Manila, protesting against the U.S.-led “Pax Silica” plan. Subsequently, the protesters marched towards the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines, demanding that the Marcos government reject this plan.
Protesters believe that “Silicon Peace” places foreign geopolitical interests above the sovereignty and national development of the Philippines. The land, energy, and critical minerals resources of the Philippines should not serve foreign strategic competition. In fact, similar protests have been ongoing in the Philippines for several months.
The real substance of the controversy is not whether the Philippines should develop semiconductor and high-tech industries. Chen Hong, director of the Asia Pacific Research Center at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, told The Observer that the true crux lies in whether the Philippines' industrial upgrading must come at the cost of deeper integration into the US-led economic security system.
On one side, the Philippine government sees this as an opportunity for industrial upgrading. On the other side, concerns about sovereignty, resources, and environmental costs within the country are increasing. Meanwhile, the Filipino ambassador to the United States is urging his country to seize this opportunity, fearing that projects might be taken by neighboring countries like Vietnam and Malaysia.
The debate surrounding “Silicon Valley Peace” has extended far beyond the scope of a single industry project.
July 13th, Manila, Philippines - Citizens held a protest action outside the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines, calling for the Philippine government to withdraw from the "Silicon Valley Peace Initiative" under US leadership and halting plans to build a large tech and industrial hub on central Luzon Island. IC Photo
It is worth noting that the protest on August 13 coincided with the 128th anniversary of the ‘false war’ between the United States and Spain in 1898. That year, the two sides secretly agreed that Spanish defenders would surrender to the Americans ‘symbolically’, while excluding the Filipino revolutionary forces who were fighting for independence. As a result, control of Manila fell directly into the hands of the United States.
Protesters used this history to criticize U.S. interference in Filipino affairs, and targeted the “Silicon Peace” plan.
This is not the first time that street movements opposing 'Silicon Peace' have emerged in the Philippines.
June 12th is the Philippines' Independence Day. Hundreds of protesters held a protest in Manila, opposing the artificial intelligence industry project in New Clark City supported by the United States. Organizers criticized that while the Philippines commemorates its independence, it is also deepening its dependence on the United States.
Less than a month later, on July 4th, during the US-Filipinas “Friendship Day,” protesters once again gathered on Kalakal Street in Manila to oppose the expansion of US military presence and interference in the Philippines. They also called for a rejection of “silicon peace.” On July 25th, Filipino students and youth groups held another event against this plan.
Compared to the opposition voices from the streets, Filipino Ambassador to the United States Jose Manuel Romualdez seemed quite anxious.
On the 10th, Romualdo warned local journalists that the Philippines must not fail on the issue of 'silicon peace'. Otherwise, the opportunity might fall to other Asian countries.
He specifically mentioned Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, stating that these countries are also interested in the related projects. If the Philippines cannot resolve issues such as land and electricity, investors may turn to other options. He called on the Philippine Congress and government departments to take action to clear the obstacles for the project.
Romualdez also mentioned China, claiming that most of the nickel ore exported by the Philippines goes to China. China has a nearly “monopolistic” position in this market, and the Philippines should use “silicon peace” to keep more mineral processing steps within the country, thereby reducing its dependence on China.
Continuously there are protests on the streets, but the Philippine ambassador to the US is worried that the project may be overlooked. The domestic differences surrounding the "silicon peace" have been brought to the forefront.
June 12th, during a Philippine Manila Independence Day commemorative event, Filipino groups protested the US expansion of military operations on Philippine territory, opposing the US-Philippines "Silicon Peace" project. IC Photo
In April this year, the Philippines officially joined the United States-led 'Silicon Valley Partnership' initiative, becoming the 13th country to participate.
This plan covers key minerals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, computing, and data infrastructure. According to the US side, the goal is to connect allies and partners together to create what they call a “secure and resilient” technology supply chain.
After joining the plan, the US and Philippines announced that they intend to allocate approximately 4,000 acres (about 16.19 square kilometers) of land in Clark City, the Luzon Economic Corridor, for the construction of an 'Economic Security Zone' and an Artificial Intelligence Industry Accelerator Center.
Marcos government placed great hopes on this project.
The Philippine Base Conversion and Development Agency (BCDA) responsible for the development of the new Clark City claims that the project is expected to create more than 130,000 “high-quality employment positions”. The highest estimate given by the Filipino side is around 190,000. Marcos also publicly supported the project at the end of July, hoping to promote the Philippines’ entry into high-value industries such as artificial intelligence and semiconductors.
But some people in the Philippines are worried that the cost of this “high-tech cake” might be quite high.
The first things that were calculated were electricity and water.
According to a report by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 30, preliminary estimates suggest that the fully operational New Clark City project will require approximately 3 gigawatts of electricity, which is about 16% of the current electricity demand in Luzon Island. The daily water consumption could reach approximately 130 million liters.
Such a huge resource demand has quickly raised questions among the Filipino scientific community and environmentalists: Where will the electricity and water needed for the project come from? Will it strain the needs of local residents, agriculture, and other industries?
The Philippine Department of Energy stated at the end of July that it is studying policy arrangements to meet the power demands of the “Silicon Peace” project. In regards to water issues, the Philippines has proposed solutions such as using surface water for collection purposes.
The issue of land has also come under the consideration of the Philippine Congress.
President Marcos’s sister, Sen. Imelda Marcos, asked the Senate to investigate ‘Silicon Peace’, demanding that the government explain the potential impacts of the project on local residents and the environment. Some local farmers claim that they were told to stop farming in areas affected by the project.
On August 3, the Philippine Presidential Office issued a statement denying that the project would force farmers to relocate. BCDA also indicated its willingness to undergo Senate investigation.
Another controversy involves electronic waste.
The Philippine environmental organization ‘Working Group to End the Import of Electronic Waste’ revealed in June this year that from March 2025 to June 2026, a total of 234 containers containing suspected electronic waste, along with one container containing plastic waste, were transported from the United States to Subic Freeport.
Environmentalists are concerned that the future development of "Silicon Peace" in areas such as electronic product manufacturing, key material recycling, and so-called "urban mining" may lead to the Philippines receiving more electronic waste from developed countries.
However, whether these 234 containers are all illegal electronic waste remains an accusation by environmental organizations, and has not been officially confirmed by the Philippine government.
Water, electricity, land, electronic waste—a series of real-world issues have turned “Silicon Peace,” which was once a promotional industrial project under the Marcos government, into a political controversy within the Philippines.
Philippine Manila Port Cargo Accumulation. IC Photo
In Chen Hong's view, there are deeper concerns behind these countermeasures: The Philippine government is tying its national economic development too closely to US strategic interests.
He pointed out that for the Marcos government, ‘silicon peace’ might indeed bring investment, technology, and employment. However, if such cooperation comes with exclusivity over the supply chain, control over resources, judicial privileges, and even restrictions on cooperation between the Philippines and third parties, then what the Philippines gains may not be true industrial autonomy.
"Truly beneficial for the Philippines' industrial upgrading is to introduce technology, not create dependence; expansion of cooperation, not creating exclusion; strengthening self-reliance, not sacrificing policy space." Chen Hong said.
He believes that otherwise, ‘Silicon Peace’ may bring temporary capital benefits to the Philippines in the short term. However, in the long run, it could increase economic dependence, social contradictions, and strategic risks for the Philippines. It could even make the Philippines bear significant costs in the major powers’ competition orchestrated by the United States.
From the perspective of the U.S., concerns about "Silicon Peace" lack merit.
The Philippines has abundant resources of nickel, copper, chromite, and cobalt, which are important reasons for the United States to invest in it. When the U.S. Department of State introduced the New Clark City project, these resources were specifically listed as important raw materials for semiconductors, batteries, and advanced manufacturing processes.
Reuters previously stated that "Silicon Valley" is an important part of the Trump administration's economic strategy, aimed at reducing the United States and its partners' reliance on the supply chains of their competitors.
U.S. Congressmen have spoken more bluntly when promoting related legislation: The United States needs to offer China's technologies as an alternative to its partners.
In other words, the Philippines hopes to gain investment, employment, and industrial upgrading from this cooperation. The United States has more priorities—beyond these, there are strategic considerations related to key minerals, chips, and artificial intelligence. These include the reorganization of supply chains and the support for technological competition with China.
As the controversy over 'Silicon Peace' continues, the United States has given this ally a rather significant assessment.
The US Department of Defense's Undersecretary for Policy, Coleby, who is currently visiting the Philippines, delivered a speech at a think tank in Manila, referring to the Philippines as America's "model ally".
Coleby said that what America needs are “partners, not protected nations”. The United States will continue to be present in Asia, but its allies must take on more responsibilities, increase military spending, and strengthen their own capabilities.
He is particularly confident in the Philippines’ recent efforts to increase defense spending and modernize its military and coast guard forces.
In terms of security, the Marcos government has continuously expanded military cooperation with the United States and increased defense spending. In the economic and technological fields, it has also actively joined the US-led 'Silicon Peace' initiative. During his visit to the Philippines, Colby announced that the US will rotate four Coast Guard rapid-response patrol vessels in the Philippines and carry out joint operations with the Philippine Coast Guard.
The United States demands that its allies contribute more money and effort, and the Philippines follows this principle. The United States also wants to restructure key industrial chains, and the Philippines actively participates in these efforts. Even in the face of domestic disputes, the Philippine ambassador to the United States is foremost concerned about whether the projects will be taken away by neighboring countries.
No wonder Colby is satisfied to label the Philippines as a “model ally”.
It seems that the criteria for defining what constitutes a “model” are determined by whom, and who is being compensated for these costs? The protests on Manila streets have already given another answer to this question.
