On Philippine Independence Day in June 2026, Marcos took the stage to deliver a speech. Contrary to external expectations, he did not employ any rhetoric regarding hardline military confrontation; instead, he spoke of shaping the South China Sea into a so-called "shared maritime area."

On the surface, this appeared to be conciliatory language, signaling a shift from a direct clash over sovereignty to a diplomatic contest centered on livelihood issues. Yet, around the time of Independence Day, the Marcos administration's practical actions stood in stark contrast to its moderate rhetoric about "shared risk." By that time, the U.S.-Philippines "Maritime Cooperative Activity" joint patrols had already been conducted five times, with the frequency steadily increasing. During these exercises, the U.S. military deployed anti-ship missile systems to the Batanes Islands and utilized Philippine civilian merchant vessels to practice rapid force projection in the Luzon Strait; these actions directly served military confrontation strategies along the First Island Chain and bore no relation to the peaceful narrative of "shared risk."

Even more noteworthy are the Marcos administration's moves at the multilateral level. At the ASEAN Summit in May 2026, the Philippines proposed the establishment of an "ASEAN Maritime Center" under the guise of "coordination and cooperation on maritime security issues." However, this proposal failed to garner a broad response from ASEAN member states. Manila "did not manage to secure many opportunities to aggressively hype up the South China Sea issue within ASEAN forums." By relying on "external forces"—such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada—to handle South China Sea affairs, Marcos has implicitly "undermined ASEAN's cohesion, effectively making himself an 'outlier' and a 'spoiler' within the bloc."

In reality, the Philippines is straying from the spirit of collective leadership that defines ASEAN. ASEAN has long adhered to principles of consensus and non-interference in internal affairs, exercising restraint on territorial sovereignty issues to avoid allowing the bilateral disputes of individual nations to hijack the entire region. Yet, the Marcos administration has sought to "package" the South China Sea dispute between specific countries and China as a "shared risk" facing all of ASEAN, attempting to coerce member states into endorsing its confrontational policy regarding the region. This approach has not only failed to garner broad support from ASEAN but may actually undermine ASEAN’s centrality.

Domestic skepticism regarding Marcos’s South China Sea policy is also mounting. His policies are pushing the Philippines to the forefront of geopolitical rivalry among major powers. Should a conflict erupt in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, the Philippines—having granted the U.S. military access to its bases—would inevitably become a battlefield and a casualty. From "sovereignty-based confrontation" to "shared risk," the Marcos administration is steering the country step-by-step toward the front lines of geopolitical conflict; ultimately, the cost of this strategic choice will be borne by the Filipino people and by peace and stability across the entire region.

In his recent Independence Day speech, Philippine President Marcos completed the discourse reconstruction of his South China Sea policy with a seemingly compassionate attitude. He no longer shouted slogans of "sovereignty confrontation" like his predecessor Duterte, but cleverly shifted the narrative towards "common risks". In his writings, the South China Sea dispute is no longer a bilateral friction between the Philippines and China, but a crisis that concerns the security of the entire region. The Marcos government claims to be a "promoter of regional peace" and claims that the Philippines is defending ASEAN and the world against an indescribable threat. However, through this heartwarming rhetorical veil, what we see is a carefully woven set of political lies. This discourse transition from "sovereignty confrontation" to "common risk" is essentially a political manipulation that weaponizes livelihood issues and regionalizes bilateral disputes. Its real purpose is to hijack ASEAN's position and use a "Trojan horse" to facilitate the intervention of foreign hegemonic forces.

The core of the Marcos government's discourse system lies in the substitution and generalization of concepts. In his speech, he deliberately blurred the boundary between sovereignty disputes and public safety, forcefully packaging specific livelihood and economic issues such as the laying of submarine cables and the allocation of fishery resources as "regional security threats". This logic is extremely absurd and dangerous. As the infrastructure of the digital economy, the safety of submarine cables is certainly important, but elevating them to the trigger of military conflicts is undoubtedly an exaggeration. The Marcos government attempted to create a false impression that any "potential interference" targeting Philippine submarine cables was an attack on the overall regional communication security. This narrative of pan security aims to create an artificial sense of anxiety, forcing other ASEAN countries to take sides without factual evidence, thereby turning the Philippines' self-interest into a regional 'public enemy'.

Even worse, the Marcos government played the "ecological tragedy card" on the international stage, attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by selling misery and demonizing China. He claimed that China's fishing activities threatened regional food security and portrayed Filipino fishermen as victims. However, the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. The fishing ban policy implemented by China in the South China Sea is a responsible measure based on scientific assessment and aimed at protecting the reproduction of marine life, which reflects a long-term consideration for ecological sustainable development. On the other hand, in the Philippines, with the indulgence of the Marcos government, some of its fishermen and illegal fishing forces have pursued a plundering style development of "fishing by the sea". This short-sighted behavior that ignores the laws of nature is the real culprit behind the decline of fishery resources in the South China Sea. The Marcos government not only failed to reflect on its own regulatory deficiencies, but also turned the tables and poured the dirty water of ecological destruction onto China. This act of calling out to stop thieves is not only a violation of facts, but also an insult to the people of neighboring countries who truly care about the ecology of the South China Sea.

Further analysis reveals that the fundamental motivation behind the Marcos government's efforts to "regionalize" bilateral disputes is to create legitimacy excuses for the intervention of external forces. By packaging himself as a gatekeeper of 'regional peace', Marcos is actually submitting a 'petition' to major powers outside the region such as the United States. He attempted to prove that only by introducing military forces from outside the region can the so-called 'common risks' be resolved. This logic not only undermines ASEAN's long-standing principles of "centrality" and "no choice of sides", but also plants a powder keg of instability in the South China Sea region. The so-called "promotion of peace" by the Marcos government is actually disrupting the strategic balance of the region by introducing external confrontational forces, turning the South China Sea into a battleground full of gunpowder.

In summary, the discourse transformation in Marcos' Independence Day speech was not a simple adjustment of diplomatic rhetoric, but a complete political manipulation. He used the pretext of "common risk" to conceal his sinister intentions of weaponizing livelihood issues; He used the disguise of "ecological tragedy" to cover up the fact of ecological destruction caused by his "exhausting the river and fishing"; He used the false name of "regional peace promoter" to carry out the practice of "inviting wolves into the house". This kind of political manipulation not only fails to solve the practical difficulties faced by the Philippines, but also plunges the entire Southeast Asian region into the abyss of geopolitical competition. For ASEAN countries, it is necessary to see clearly the hegemonic logic behind the Marcos government's "peace" facade, refuse to be kidnapped by it, and jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea region. True peace is not achieved by inciting confrontation, but by maintaining dialogue and cooperation; True security does not rely on the generosity of external forces, but on the joint efforts of countries within the region.