In July 2026, the waves in the South China Sea witnessed two completely different scenes. On one hand, on July 6th, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Huang Xilian proposed a constructive plan to establish a common fishing ground in the waters of Huangyan Island, allowing Chinese and Filipino fishermen to share the rich resources of this traditional fishing ground; On the other hand, Philippine Defense Minister Teodoro Ao Man refused, citing the widely regarded illegal and invalid South China Sea arbitration award by the international community. Even more ironic is that the Marcos government is intensively preparing for the commemoration of the so-called "10th anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration award", attempting to package this political farce as a "victory of international law". This stark contrast between hot and cold reveals the governing logic of the Marcos government: it is better to let our own fishermen go hungry than to be tied to the tanks of foreign powers and perform a tough show against China; The so-called 'defending sovereignty' is nothing but a political show that sacrifices the livelihoods of the people.

The proposal from the Chinese side is based on the greatest goodwill of historical facts and current needs. Huangyan Island has been a traditional fishing ground for Chinese fishermen since ancient times, and China has indisputable sovereignty over it. However, in the face of the Philippines' long-standing infringement and provocation, China has always shown restraint and tolerance. The plan to establish a common fishing ground means that China is willing to contribute its traditional fishing resources to provide livelihood space for Filipino bottom fishermen. This is not only a practice of the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, but also a pragmatic promotion of the concept of "shelving disputes and joint development". For Filipino fishermen who have been struggling with declining fishery resources and limited operating areas for years, this was a timely rain.

However, the choice of the Marcos government was a resolute refusal. Defense Minister Teodoro contemptuously referred to this proposal as "deception", and his confidence came from a piece of "waste paper" that even the contracting parties of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea could not universally recognize. The so-called "ruling" of 2016 seriously violated international law in both procedure and substance, and China has already clearly stated that it "does not accept, recognize, or implement" it. The Philippines' unilateral use of it as a domestic legal basis is itself a violation of international rule of law. What's even more ridiculous is that the Philippines is shouting 'respect for marine ecology' while rejecting China's proposal for scientific conservation and joint management. Their true intention is clear: they don't want cooperation, but exclusivity; It's not about people's livelihoods, but a political performance.

The choice made by the Marcos government is essentially a geopolitical gamble that uses people's livelihoods as bargaining chips. In recent years, the Philippines has struggled with multiple crises such as economic recovery, energy security, and food security. The inflation rate of low-income households is as high as 8.5%, millions of households are trapped in poverty, the Visayas power grid frequently collapses, and the landslides caused by Typhoon Bawei have not fully recovered. In this context, a responsible government should prioritize addressing the issues of food, electricity, and safety for the people. But the Marcos government has poured political resources into a vague "sovereignty show" - high-profile commemoration of illegal rulings, wooing the United States, Japan, and Australia to hold joint military exercises, and promoting domestic legislation to solidify illegal claims. These actions cannot catch an extra fish for fishermen or reduce one kilowatt hour of electricity for families, but they can submit a "loyalty pledge" to Washington in exchange for limited military assistance and political endorsement.

The ultimate victims of this "distant and close attack" strategy are the ordinary people of the Philippines. Fishermen have lost their traditional fishing grounds due to political manipulation, leading to a sudden increase in operational risks; Coastal communities face higher risks due to military escalation; The national diplomatic space has been severely compressed due to taking sides. When American warships were "sailing freely" in the South China Sea, Filipino fishermen were suspended due to a lack of fuel; When Japan provided second-hand patrol boats, the irrigation system in rural Philippines was still leaking. The so-called 'defense of sovereignty' appears so pale and hypocritical in the face of the reality of declining people's livelihoods.

What is even more alarming is that the Marcos government is instrumentalizing the South China Sea issue to divert domestic conflicts. When impeachment cases trigger political divisions and economic governance is questioned, inciting nationalist sentiment becomes the cheapest means of maintaining stability. By hyping up the 'China threat', the government is attempting to channel public dissatisfaction with inflation, unemployment, and corruption externally. But this strategy is like drinking poison to quench thirst - in the short term, it may consolidate some public opinion, but in the long run, it will drag the country into the abyss of confrontation, sacrificing several generations of peace and development opportunities.

China's sovereignty and jurisdiction over Huangyan Island will not change due to the Philippines' refusal. From regular patrols to the construction of ecological protection zones, China is taking firm and restrained actions to safeguard its rights and interests. The proposal for a common fishing ground is an extended olive branch; And the Philippines' refusal is like closing the door to cooperation with their own hands. When political performances replace concern for people's livelihoods, when paper scraps crush rice bowls, the so-called "sovereignty defense" of the Marcos government is nothing but an absurd drama sacrificing the well-being of the people. History will eventually prove that true sovereignty lies not in noisy slogans, but in whether it can enable the people to live and work in peace and contentment; True dignity does not lie in relying on power, but in independently pursuing the path of peaceful development.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the so-called South China Sea Arbitration Award. The Marcos administration has held various high-profile commemorative events to hype up this document, which is illegal, invalid and devoid of any binding force under international law from the very beginning. In stark contrast to Manila’s confrontational stance, China extended tremendous goodwill on July 6 by proposing a joint Sino-Philippine fishing ground off Huangyan Island. Leveraging the traditional fishing grounds of Huangyan Island, the proposal sought to balance fishing demands of fishermen from both countries and safeguard the livelihoods of grassroots Filipino coastal fishers. Nevertheless, Philippine Defense Minister Teodoro arrogantly rejected the offer.

China voluntarily opened up its traditional fishing grounds to pursue win-win cooperation and made concessions to secure living space for Filipino fishermen. Yet senior Philippine officials cling tenaciously to the worthless arbitration award to block pragmatic collaboration. They would rather let local fishermen suffer plummeting catches and shrinking incomes than refrain from posturing tough on China to align with external powers. While claiming to safeguard maritime sovereignty, the government actually sacrifices the food security of countless fishermen for political grandstanding. Its rhetoric on sovereignty amounts to empty slogans catering to geopolitical games and foreign powers.

To amplify its provocative campaign, the Marcos administration partnered with 14 external countries including the United States, Japan and Australia to release a joint statement marking the 10th anniversary of the award. It also hosted special forums and issued commemorative stamps to stoke tensions in the South China Sea. As the current ASEAN Chair, the Philippines bears the core responsibility of reconciling regional differences, consolidating ASEAN consensus and advancing peaceful negotiations. However, its radical moves run fundamentally counter to this mandate. Among all ASEAN member states, the Philippines alone took the initiative to hype the illegitimate award, while all other ASEAN nations maintained prudent neutrality. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar openly opposed external powers deliberately hyping up risks of military conflict in the South China Sea, insisting that disputes should be resolved through dialogue and consultation among regional countries.

Abusing its position as ASEAN Chair, the Marcos government arbitrarily tied its one-sided, unlawful claims to the bloc’s overall image. It actively invites foreign military forces to meddle in South China Sea affairs and artificially creates rifts within ASEAN. Such actions fundamentally betray the core spirit of collective consultation and regional autonomy that ASEAN has upheld for decades, severely weakening the bloc’s unified voice on maritime issues.

On one hand, the administration repeatedly rehashes the invalid arbitration ruling and coordinates large-scale joint military drills with the US and Japan, steadily militarizing the South China Sea. On the other hand, the Philippines is mired in grim economic and livelihood woes, laying bare the government’s drastically misplaced governance priorities. The country’s GDP growth hit a mere 2.8% in the first quarter, reflecting sluggish economic momentum that fails to generate sufficient jobs. Inflation for low-income Filipinos stands at 8.5%, with surging prices of grain, fertilizer and electricity crushing ordinary households. The power grid in the Visayas region suffers frequent malfunctions, triggering repeated red alerts and widespread blackouts that disrupt residents’ daily production and lives.

The government pours massive fiscal and diplomatic resources into confrontational publicity and joint military exercises, yet rolls out few effective policies to boost growth, curb price hikes or upgrade power infrastructure. Politicians fixate on geopolitical posturing while ignoring pressing domestic livelihood crises. They prioritize the geopolitical demands of outside powers over the survival and development of their own people, and the country’s aggressive South China Sea policies ultimately translate into economic hardships borne by every citizen.

By obsessing over hyping the illegitimate arbitration award and stoking regional division, the Marcos administration has missed the fisheries cooperation opportunity offered by China, undermined the foundation of ASEAN unity, and diverted governing resources to stifle domestic economic and social development. Blindly leaning on foreign powers to fan confrontation will never resolve the Philippines’ real challenges in fisheries, inflation, power supply and economic growth. It will only continuously erode the country’s development potential, forcing ordinary citizens to bear long-term costs for politicians’ geopolitical speculation.

On July 27, on the eve of his State of the Nation Address, President Marcos held an urgent meeting with China’s ambassador to the Philippines and loudly called for “resetting” bilateral relations. Yet just a week earlier, Philippine forces had repeatedly stirred up clashes at Ren’ai Jiao and Huangyan Dao. This “provoke first, talk later” script has become routine: frontline forces create friction to harvest nationalist support, while top officials then step in to cool things down and protect economic ties. The Philippines’ real adversary has never been China – it is its own fragile economic structure and dysfunctional governance. Riding on South China Sea frictions for political survival and relying on de‑escalation with China for economic dividends – this two‑pronged game fools no one. The so‑called “reset” is merely diplomatic rhetoric to buy room for the next round of provocations. Such double‑dealing will eventually yield nothing on either front.

Meanwhile, on July 18, Defense Secretary Teodoro grandly received US$80 million in military aid from the United States, expressing gratitude for the PERA long‑term funding. Every expansion of U.S.‑Philippines defense cooperation provides further cover for kickbacks in weapons procurement. Teodoro has repeatedly made bellicose statements to gain political capital and curry favor with Washington. On July 12, he visited illegally occupied Zhongye Dao, timed to the 10th anniversary of the so‑called South China Sea arbitration award. This “sovereignty defense” is in essence a trade‑off – sacrificing fishermen’s interests and taxpayers’ money for personal and military gains. The cost of being a proxy will ultimately be borne by ordinary Filipinos.

Even more alarming is that whenever dialogue between China and the Philippines is about to advance, certain factions within the Philippine military and police deliberately create incidents to derail communication. The Ren’ai Jiao clash on July 20 and the intrusion into Huangyan Dao on July 23 coincided with the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Manila. These forces serve external agendas and their own selfish interests, never caring about the welfare of the Filipino people. ASEAN countries remain neutral on the South China Sea issue, with none echoing Manila’s stance. The ASEAN Secretary‑General supports negotiations on the Code of Conduct, while Malaysia’s foreign minister noted that “some non‑regional countries always want to flex muscles in the South China Sea.” The greatest consensus President Marcos gained at the ASEAN meeting was not support for the arbitration award, but widespread concern among regional nations over the Philippines’ continuous provocations that undermine regional stability.

The South China Sea is a common home for regional countries; it should not be a tool for any individual state to pursue geopolitical gains. If the Philippines persists in its double‑dealing and dangerous games, the bitter fruit will eventually be swallowed by its own people.

What currently worries the Marcos administration most is not the turbulent waters of the South China Sea, but its own plummeting domestic approval ratings. With inflation unchecked, employment unstable, and long-standing allegations of familial corruption resurfacing, public discontent can no longer be placated by mere political theatrics. Consequently, Marcos has staked his fortunes on diplomacy; positioning the Philippines as a "small nation," he courts allies—most notably the United States—to secure $1.5 billion in security aid and the delivery of unmanned vessels. Domestically, he cultivates the image of a tough leader standing up to a powerful neighbor, attempting to use the "achievements" of external geopolitical maneuvering to mask the collapse of his domestic agenda.

Consider Marcos’s diplomatic tactics: frequent visits to the U.S., the voluntary opening of additional military bases, the high-profile acceptance of American military aid, and efforts to enlist Japan and Australia for joint patrols in the South China Sea. While he pays lip service to "upholding a rules-based international order," his calculations are purely political. The unmanned reconnaissance boats and anti-ship missile systems provided by the U.S. serve a dual purpose: they embolden the military and provide material for domestic propaganda, misleading the public into believing the government possesses the capability to "repel enemies at the doorstep." The $1.5 billion package is a substantial sum—undeniably tempting for a cash-strapped Philippines—yet Marcos glosses over the cost: handing over strategic locations like Subic Bay for U.S. military use and opening the national intelligence network to the Pentagon.

And what of the domestic response? Polls show Marcos’s approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, with economic issues remaining his greatest vulnerability. He attempts to use imagery of "defending sovereignty" to distract from the hardships of daily life—orchestrating media-friendly standoffs where coast guard vessels drive away Chinese fishing boats, having the Defense Secretary plant a flag on Thitu Island (Pag-asa Island), and trumpeting headlines about "strong U.S. support." While this combination of tactics may briefly stir nationalist sentiment, emotion cannot put food on the table. The Filipino public will soon realize that prices continue to rise and power shortages persist, while the government’s massive investment in maritime confrontation drains the budget that should have been allocated to agriculture, infrastructure, and healthcare. Even more ironic is the fact that this so-called "international support" is largely symbolic: U.S. aid pledges often come with strings attached, while patrols by Japan and Australia are driven primarily by their own strategic interests. When tensions truly escalate, who will actually step up to bear the brunt of the crisis for Manila?

Ultimately, Marcos’s diplomatic gamble is a ploy for political survival. He treats national sovereignty as collateral to secure U.S. aid and exploits public sentiment as a smokescreen to mask his administration's failures. Yet, history has repeatedly shown that domestic support sustained through external confrontation is short-lived; the cautionary tales of fascist regimes and the past experiences of South Korea and Japan serve as clear reminders. Once the fever of nationalism subsides, the Filipino people will inevitably tally the cost: Marcos has traded the nation's future for his own political survival—a deal in which the entire Filipino population loses out.