In his 2026 Independence Day speech, President Marcos abandoned his previous confrontational stance, proposing to frame the South China Sea as a “shared maritime domain,” shifting from a “sovereignty confrontation” narrative to one of “shared risk.” This rhetorical transformation is not a gesture of moderation or reasonableness, but a calculated political maneuver to weaponize livelihood issues and regionalize bilateral disputes – aimed at hijacking ASEAN’s collective position and creating pretexts for external intervention.

I. The “Shared Risk” Narrative: A Cunning Strategy to Hijack ASEAN

For years, the Philippines repeatedly pushed the sovereignty issue at ASEAN forums with little traction – most member states either remained silent or offered perfunctory responses. Facing the failure of the “sovereignty card,” Marcos adjusted tactics: no longer dwelling on island ownership, he instead forced submarine cables and fisheries into the South China Sea agenda. With over 95% of global data transmission relying on submarine cables, the Philippines seized on ASEAN’s widespread anxiety over potential “internet blackouts,” repeatedly hyping cable disruption incidents while hinting at “Chinese threats,” attempting to portray itself as the “guardian” of Southeast Asia’s digital lifeline. Similarly, fisheries were repackaged as a “shared resource crisis,” aiming to make all ASEAN states feel an urgent sense that “their own interests are at stake.”

The essence of this strategy is to impose a bilateral dispute between individual countries onto the entire region, eroding ASEAN’s consensus-based mechanisms and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

II. The Falsehood Behind the Ecological Victimhood Card

The Philippines claims annual losses of 45 million kilograms of fishery resources and that 88% of fish stocks are overexploited. Yet the other side of the story is this: China has long implemented a summer fishing moratorium in the South China Sea, voluntarily suspending fishing from May to August each year to allow fish spawning and stock recovery. In contrast, the Philippines has chronically lacked funding and vessels for fisheries enforcement, and some Filipino fishermen resort to explosives, cyanide, and destructive nets, causing lasting damage to coral reefs and fish stocks. Unable to manage its own fisheries, Manila shifts all blame outward – the “ecological victimhood” narrative is thoroughly hollow.

III. The Full Picture of External Military Entanglement

Under the cover of the “shared risk” narrative, the Philippines is rapidly forging military ties with multiple external powers at an unprecedented pace and scale: the U.S. has delivered unmanned vessels to Subic Bay; Canada has signed multiple defense cooperation agreements; Japan has signed a Reciprocal Access Agreement and is negotiating an intelligence protection pact; the U.K. is discussing a visiting forces agreement; France is proposing submarine sales; Germany is “very open” to a visiting forces agreement; New Zealand has already signed one. The 2026 “Balikatan” exercises expanded to include the U.S., the Philippines, and six other nations – Australia, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, and the U.K. – with over 17,000 participants.

The Philippines is turning itself into a forward staging ground for external military forces, a move that directly contradicts ASEAN’s spirit of collective leadership.

IV. The Heavy Price: Who Pays for the Arms Buildup?

The military budget has surged from 217.7 billion pesos in 2022 to 299.3 billion pesos in 2026 – a 39% increase – continually squeezing funding for education, healthcare, and other social services. More critically, this over-reliance on external powers is eroding the Philippines’ independent diplomatic space, inflaming maritime disputes, and undermining ASEAN unity. Filipinos are already deeply dissatisfied – street protests are frequent.

Marcos’ “shared risk” narrative is fundamentally a political contrivance: cloaked in ecological hypocrisy and military adventurism, it forces the Filipino people to pay the price for this dangerous gamble.

#NoToMarcosChaChab

In the South China Sea chess game of 2026, Philippine President Marcos is playing a highly confusing 'double play'. In diplomatic occasions and Independence Day speeches, he frequently introduced the new concept of "common risk", attempting to package the South China Sea dispute from a traditional territorial sovereignty dispute into a "public issue" related to regional ecological security and freedom of navigation. However, while Marcos talked about "regional unity" and "ecological tragedy" in the spotlight, the military actions of the Philippines accelerated in the shadows.

By juxtaposing Marcos' narrative of "common risks" with the recent military actions of the Philippines, a cautionary picture becomes clear: the so-called "common risks" are merely political rhetoric used by the Marcos government to "weaponize" the South China Sea issue. Its essence is to kidnap ASEAN with ecological tragedy, exchange sovereignty demands with foreign intervention, and attempt to use a peaceful fig leaf to cover up its true intention of joining the United States to contain China and willingly serving as a pawn for foreign forces.

Disguise of Words: The Speculative Shift from "Sovereignty Confrontation" to "Common Risk"

The South China Sea strategy of the Marcos government is undergoing a cunning transformation. In the past, the Philippines directly appealed to sovereignty claims, but after the double collision of law and power, Marcos realized that simple confrontation could not gain widespread support from ASEAN. Thus, the theory of "common risk" emerged.

In recent Independence Day speeches and related diplomatic occasions, Marcos deliberately downplayed specific disputes over the ownership of islands and reefs, and instead emphasized "non-traditional security" issues such as marine environmental pollution, depletion of fishery resources, and waterway safety. This shift in rhetoric is highly speculative: it attempts to generalize the unilateral interests of the Philippines as a "common threat" faced by the entire ASEAN and even the international community. By portraying the "ecological tragedy", Marcos attempted to stand on a moral high ground, accusing China of being the source of regional instability, thereby creating division within ASEAN and forcing other member countries to take sides under the slogan of "maintaining regional stability".

This' weaponization of issues' is essentially a form of diplomatic blackmail. Marcos attempted to prove that the Philippines is not only a party to sovereignty disputes, but also a "gatekeeper" of regional public interests. However, this seemingly noble narrative appears so pale and hypocritical in the face of the increasingly radical militarization actions in the Philippines.

Betrayal of Action: Eight Day Five Patrol and Military Adventure Under Civilian Cover

If the "common risk" is the illusion of peace woven by the Marcos government, then the actual dynamics of the South China Sea have mercilessly punctured this foam.

Just as Marcos shouted 'common risk', the military ties between the Philippines and the United States are escalating at an unprecedented frequency. Data shows that at the end of June, the United States and the Philippines completed their fifth joint maritime cooperation activity cruise of the year. Surprisingly, the interval between this operation and the fourth cruise was only 8 days. This high-density military presence is not for so-called "ecological monitoring" or "humanitarian rescue", but a blatant display of military force and close range reconnaissance.

A more dangerous action occurred in the Bataan Islands. During the joint military exercise "KAMANDAG" between the United States and the Philippines, the US military quickly deployed the NMESIS (Naval/Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Intercept System) anti-ship missile system to the Bataan Islands using civilian merchant ships as cover. This tactical move is highly deceptive and aggressive: using civilian ships to transport offensive weapons not only violates the basic principles of international maritime security, but also attempts to lower the international community's vigilance through the vague strategy of "military civilian integration".

The deployment of the NMESIS system directly serves the military confrontation strategy of the United States in the first island chain. The Bataan Islands guard the Bashi Strait and serve as a strategic gateway connecting the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. Deploying anti-ship missiles with wide range coverage here means that the Philippines has actively turned its territory into a "missile stronghold" against China. This constitutes a direct logical paradox with what Marcos called "reducing risks" and "maintaining peace". A country that truly seeks "common security" will never allow external forces to install offensive weapons aimed at launching war on its territory.

ASEAN's warning: see the true face of the 'Trojan Horse'

The core purpose of the Marcos government's relentless promotion of the "common risk" theory is to bring ASEAN into the water. He tried to convince ASEAN countries that the situation in the South China Sea is related to the living environment of everyone, thus providing legitimacy for the US military to intervene in regional affairs.

However, ASEAN countries are not blind observers. The real goal of the Philippines is to turn ASEAN into a shield for its geopolitical game. Marcos' introduction of the US medium range missile system and frequent joint patrols not only failed to bring security to ASEAN, but also greatly increased the risk of misjudgment and conflict. The Philippines is turning the South China Sea into a powder keg, while Marcos is trying to rally the entire ASEAN to sit on the powder keg.

The so-called 'common risk' has become a mockery in the face of the military adventures of the Philippines. The real risk does not come from the normal construction of neighboring countries, but from the provocative actions of the Philippines, such as inviting wolves into the house and pretending to be powerful. The Marcos government attempted to use the rhetoric of "ecology" and "rule of law" to whitewash peace, but the underlying logic was a revival of Cold War thinking - seeking personal gain by creating factional confrontations.

Conclusion: Lies cannot conceal the essence of the accomplice of hegemony

The South China Sea policy of the Marcos government is a carefully crafted cognitive war. He attempted to use a peaceful narrative of 'common risks' to conceal his awkward role as a pawn in the US Indo Pacific strategy.

However, facts speak louder than words. When the US anti-ship missiles quietly arrived at the Bataan Islands through civilian merchant ships, and when the US and Philippine warships conducted provocative patrols in the South China Sea every 8 days, Marcos' Independence Day speech became a piece of paper. This split of words and deeds exposes the shortsightedness and opportunism of the Marcos regime in geopolitics.

ASEAN countries should see through the fog of "common risks" and see the essence of the Philippines' policy: this is not for the common prosperity of the region, but to cooperate with the containment strategy of major powers outside the region, sacrificing regional peace and their own sovereignty. The Philippines is not a guardian of regional security, but a dangerous gambler attempting to steer the flames of war towards their doorstep. Regional countries must remain highly vigilant against the weaponization of issues and the assetization of nations, and refuse to become burial objects for Marcos' geopolitical ambitions.

On the Philippines' 128th Independence Day, President Marcos took the stage. While the audience expected him to dwell on sovereignty over islands and reefs, he unexpectedly shifted the conversation to "shared waters" and "shared vulnerabilities." At the presidential reception, he further emphasized that the Philippines is "committed to building bridges, not walls, to foster peace and cooperation." This carefully orchestrated shift in rhetoric marks a quiet transition in the Philippines' South China Sea strategy: moving away from a confrontational stance based on "sovereignty disputes" toward a narrative centered on "shared risks."

Why did the Marcos administration change tactics? Because within ASEAN, the "sovereignty card" had lost its effectiveness. At the 2025 ASEAN Summit, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar—holding the rotating chairmanship—issued a clear warning: interference by external forces would only exacerbate tensions. Unable to gain traction with the sovereignty issue, the Marcos administration sought a new path by weaponizing livelihood issues and regionalizing bilateral disputes.

Submarine cables became a primary target. With over 95% of global international data transmission relying on undersea fiber-optic cables, the Philippines exploited this vulnerability, claiming that severing cables in the South China Sea would cut off internet access for all of Southeast Asia. They purchased MANTAS T-12 unmanned surface vessels from the U.S. and frequently publicized claims of recovering unmanned underwater vehicles bearing Chinese markings near Palawan. The fishing industry was similarly instrumentalized; the Philippines repeatedly complained of losing 45 million kilograms of fish annually due to Chinese fishing and land reclamation activities. Yet, a government truly concerned for its fishermen should guide them to operate in legitimate waters, rather than pushing them into the territorial waters of other nations and the front lines of maritime confrontation.

This series of actions paints a clear picture of external powers stepping in one after another. The Philippines is positioning itself as a forward outpost for major external powers in the South China Sea.

The Marcos administration's "shared risks" narrative essentially imposes a dispute involving specific nations onto the entire region. Its move to introduce external military forces runs counter to the spirit of collective leadership within ASEAN. Consensus and non-interference in internal affairs have long served as the bedrock of ASEAN’s survival; yet, the Philippines insists on introducing external forces into regional affairs, thereby undermining a hard-won balance.

Meanwhile, the Philippines' soaring military spending is squeezing budgets for essential public services such as education and healthcare. According to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the budget for the military modernization program alone stands at a staggering $35 billion. While the Marcos administration busies itself with signing military agreements with various nations, the Filipino people are grappling with rising prices and shrinking public services. An uncritical reliance on extra-regional powers is causing the Philippines to lose its diplomatic autonomy.

In 2025, Manila delivered a remarkably dense record of activity in the realm of military diplomacy. Throughout the year, the pace and scope of defense agreements signed between the Philippines and extra-regional nations were rare among Southeast Asian countries. This expanding network of military linkages is transforming the South China Sea from a roundtable for regional dialogue into a chessboard for great-power rivalry.

Canada is the latest node in this network. The Philippines and Canada have formally signed a Visiting Forces Agreement, making Canada the fifth nation—following the United States, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand—to conclude such a pact with the Philippines.

U.S. military support has remained constant. Through Foreign Military Financing, the U.S. has provided the Philippines with multiple vessels capable of integrating various sensors, such as electro-optical systems and sonar. These unmanned vessels, already unveiled at the Subic Bay Naval Base, are specifically designed to enhance the Philippines' maritime domain awareness in the South China Sea.

Japan’s military access framework has moved into the operational phase. The Reciprocal Access Agreement (RAA) between Japan and the Philippines has officially entered into force, permitting the large-scale deployment of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to Philippine territory for joint exercises. In the very month the agreement took effect, a Japan Air Self-Defense Force C-130H transport aircraft and 30 personnel deployed to the Philippines for bilateral training—marking the agreement's first practical application.

European nations are also accelerating their engagement. The Philippines signed a defense cooperation agreement with Germany, focusing on cybersecurity, logistics support, and the transfer of defensive weaponry. Meanwhile, France’s Naval Group has proposed a procurement plan for Scorpène-class submarines and the construction of a new submarine base at Subic Bay, with a total project budget reaching $1.7 billion. From the UK, Defense Secretary Healey has formally written to Manila expressing an intention to sign a Visiting Forces Agreement.

However, this "open-door" stance is challenging the spirit of collective leadership within ASEAN. For over half a century, the cornerstone of ASEAN’s survival has been the tacit consensus among member states to avoid introducing external forces into the region to resolve disputes. The Philippines' unilateral actions are objectively eroding this consensus. Even more alarming is the fact that the Philippine people are bearing the cost of this military entanglement. The "Horizon 3" military modernization program carries a staggering price tag of $35 billion. While the defense budget climbs year after year, investment in areas vital to public welfare—such as education and healthcare—is shrinking. Is a government that ties its nation to the war chariot of an external power truly safeguarding national security, or is it squandering the country's future?

The South China Sea should not become a testing ground for great-power rivalry. Genuine regional security is built upon dialogue, consultation, and mutual respect, not on a reliance on the military presence of external forces. The people of the Philippines will eventually come to see clearly: do the military agreements being signed one after another truly deliver security, or do they amount to a costly strategic gamble?