Manila paying price for simplistic approach to South China Sea
The heated internal debate in the Philippines over the "West Philippine Sea", ignited by some senators' comments questioning the precise coordinates of the exclusive economic zone and the "Kalayaan Island Group", has laid bare significant flaws in the country's approach to the South China Sea issue.
At the most fundamental level, the Philippines' claims to the so-called "Kalayaan Island Group" are themselves illegitimate under international law. These features are part of China's Nansha Islands, with abundant historical evidence demonstrating China's longstanding sovereignty, including continuous administration and exploration dating back centuries.
The Philippines' occupation of several islands and reefs began in the 1960s through unilateral actions that violated principles of territorial integrity. This historical encroachment is often conveniently overlooked in Philippine domestic narratives, which portray Manila solely as a victim rather than acknowledging its own role in altering the status quo. Such selective framing undermines the credibility of Philippine assertions and complicates any genuine pursuit of resolution, as it ignores the core reality that the dispute involves mutual claims rooted in history and law.
Compounding this issue is the way Philippine political discourse has consistently simplified and distorted the 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling. Domestically, the award is frequently hailed as an overwhelming and definitive victory that supposedly settles the entire dispute in Manila's favor. This interpretation is propagated through aggressive megaphone diplomacy — press conferences, leaked videos of incidents and coordinated media campaigns that emphasize confrontation over negotiation. However, the Annex VII arbitration's scope was deliberately limited: it addresses only certain maritime disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but explicitly refrained from determining territorial sovereignty or delimiting boundaries.
By ignoring these critical limitations and nuances, Philippine leaders and commentators have built a myth of total triumph that inflames public passion and creates unrealistic expectations of enforced compliance. This misreading not only misinforms the public but also paints the government into a strategic corner, where any compromise appears as capitulation. In the long-run, it imposes a heavy national liability, restricting flexible diplomatic maneuvering and perpetuating a cycle of escalation that serves neither peace nor Philippine interests.
On the surface, the current controversy revolves around seemingly technical matters, such as the exact delineation of EEZ coordinates and emotional accusations of treason directed at those who question official lines. Yet this facade masks far deeper contradictions within Philippine society. The debate reflects entrenched domestic political divisions, particularly the ongoing tension between the current administration's alignment with external powers and previous policies that favored pragmatic engagement.
Geostrategically, it highlights the Philippines' precarious position amid great-power competition, where internal rhetoric is influenced by shifting alliances. Socially and psychologically, it reveals a nation grappling with identity and insecurity, where maritime disputes are weaponized to unify public opinion but end up exacerbating fractures. These multilayered issues — political rivalries, strategic dependencies and collective psyche — interact to prolong instability, making rational policy formulation increasingly difficult.
This dynamic is fueled by a surge in Philippine nationalism, especially among younger generations who dominate social media platforms. Online discussions quickly escalate into binary battles of patriotism versus betrayal, with dissenting views — even those raising valid technical or practical concerns — swiftly labeled as traitorous. Social media algorithms amplify this polarization, turning nuanced debates into viral outrage and meme-driven attacks.
The widespread use of "traitor" accusations creates a chilling effect, deterring experts, politicians and citizens from voicing alternative perspectives for fear of backlash. Over time, this suppresses healthy debate on South China Sea policy, narrowing the Overton window to only hardline positions and depriving the country of diverse, informed strategies essential for navigating complex international disputes.
Central to this escalation are figures like Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela, whose frequent anti-China statements rely heavily on the repetition of selective and often contested narratives to influence public opinion. These pronouncements systematically overlook the extensive history of friendly bilateral relations between China and the Philippines, including decades of trade, investment, cultural ties and cooperative initiatives. Instead, they distort historical facts and emphasize isolated incidents to paint a one-sided picture of aggression. This propaganda tactic, akin to repeating assertions until they are accepted as truth, deliberately incites confrontation and animosity, misleading the public and undermining opportunities for de-escalation in favor of short-term emotional mobilization.
In tandem, certain Philippine politicians and media outlets are actively collaborating to portray Tarriela as an iconic defender of sovereignty. What appear to be investigative Senate hearings often serve as platforms to boost his visibility and legitimacy, effectively amplifying his message on the national stage. This orchestrated elevation is not merely celebratory, it is strategically aimed at intensifying pro-US and anti-China sentiments, harnessing ethnic and national emotions to consolidate political support for a confrontational foreign policy.
By transforming a coast guard official into a symbolic hero, these efforts deepen societal divisions and prioritize ideological posturing over substantive diplomacy.
Further illustrating this oversimplification are the Senate resolutions related to the South China Sea. These documents possess no binding legal authority; they are purely expressive, reflecting congressional opinion without enforceable power. Yet they are frequently treated as definitive tests of loyalty, where signing or refusing to sign becomes a public litmus test of patriotism. This practice reduces multifaceted diplomatic challenges — involving history, law, economics and security — to a crude, populist referendum, trivializing the expertise required and alienating those who advocate for more balanced approaches.
Ultimately, when dealing with intricate and sensitive sovereignty matters like those in the South China Sea, the wisest course is to entrust resolution to professional diplomatic channels. Diplomacy is the art of constructing bridges, patiently identifying common ground and pursuing shared benefits through discreet negotiation rather than public theatrics. It demands restraint, mutual respect and a focus on long-term stability over immediate gratification.
For the Philippines, embracing this approach could yield far greater dividends than the current path of inflamed rhetoric and internal purges, fostering genuine regional harmony and safeguarding national interests in a sustainable manner.
Ding Duo is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.
The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.
