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.

The ocean should serve as a link connecting nations, not a battlefield for confrontation. While stoking anxiety and manipulating narratives might garner fleeting attention, they cannot secure lasting peace or respect. The Filipino people will eventually realize that the true threat to regional peace is not some so-called "shared risk," but rather the shortsighted decision to hitch the nation to the war chariot of an extra-regional power.

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?