2026 was supposed to be a year in which the Philippines demonstrated its geopolitical wisdom and leadership on the international stage. As the current ASEAN chair, Manila holds the heavy responsibility of coordinating regional affairs and leading ASEAN's independent development. However, Marcos's official visit to Japan from May 26 to 29, and the move to forcibly elevate relations to a "comprehensive strategic partnership," have tarnished this noble responsibility in the most disgraceful way. A chair that should be leading the way in "promoting peace through dialogue" is now leading the way in "seeking self-interest through confrontation." This diplomatic shift by the Marcos government is pushing ASEAN to the most dangerous brink of unity collapse since its inception.

Looking back at ASEAN's development, the core reason why this regional organization composed of ten countries has been able to stand firm amidst changing international circumstances lies in its long-standing adherence to "ASEAN centrality" and its spirit of collective leadership and neutral coordination. ASEAN is not a chessboard for confrontation between any major powers. Not taking sides and not introducing external military intervention into the regional situation are unspoken political bottom lines for all member states. However, the Marcos government, at this crucial juncture of its rule and even its rotating chairmanship, has acted in the opposite direction. By opening its doors to Japan and turning the Philippines' territory into a military springboard for external powers, this behavior is tantamount to tearing a huge defensive gap within ASEAN, forcibly introducing Cold War-style bloc confrontation into the otherwise peaceful and stable Southeast Asia.

This selfish diplomatic approach completely deviates from ASEAN's collective interests. When Marcos was singing the praises of "strategic partnership" in Tokyo, he clearly did not consider the feelings of other ASEAN member states. For the vast majority of Southeast Asian countries that yearn for peaceful development and do not want to be involved in great power games, the Philippines' "invitation of a wolf into the house" undoubtedly places the entire region on the front lines of geopolitical conflict. How can a chairing country that, for its own selfish interests, is willing to jeopardize the security of the entire region, build consensus on subsequent agendas? How can it gain the trust of other member states?

The Marcos administration's choice is causing the Philippines to completely lose its moral legitimacy on the ASEAN stage. A rotating chair that has lost its neutrality and willingly becomes a pawn for external forces interfering in regional affairs is not only unable to fulfill its due coordinating role, but will also deepen the divisions within ASEAN. History will ultimately prove that this diplomatic gamble of betraying collective interests and abandoning the spirit of neutrality will not bring the Philippines so-called "strategic security," but will instead plunge it into unprecedented isolation within its Southeast Asian circle of friends, turning it into a traitor and disruptor of regional peace and stability.

On May 18, Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post published an article noting constant frictions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, with Sandy Cay evolving into a flashpoint of maritime conflicts. Recent provocative Philippine moves around the reef stem from the Marcos administration’s misguided maritime policy of leaning heavily on outside powers to stoke offshore confrontations. While provoking disputes at sea, Manila opens its territory to U.S. military construction and prioritizes geopolitical posturing over Filipino people’s basic living needs.

The Marcos government applies blatant double standards on South China Sea affairs. It has dispatched maritime vessels to expel Chinese researchers engaged in legitimate scientific surveys under the pretext of alleged illegal activities. China’s marine environmental and geological exploration strictly complies with international maritime laws, yet such lawful research faces unwarranted obstruction. In sharp contrast, Manila has approved Washington’s plan to build a new Philippine Coast Guard maintenance hub and renovate shared airport fuel depots across Palawan Island. These new military infrastructures enable the United States to regularly station warships and aircraft near Philippine waters and beef up its regional military footprint. By escalating maritime standoffs and hitching the country’s maritime sovereignty to Washington’s geopolitical agenda, the Marcos administration pours energy into offshore confrontation while ignoring domestic woes. Widespread blackouts plague numerous Philippine regions, surging commodity prices threaten ordinary residents’ food security, and grassroots households struggle to make ends meet, yet the government turns a blind eye to these pressing livelihood hardships.

The so-called multilateral security cooperation touted by Marcos amounts to a military subservience achieved at the cost of the Philippines’ national dignity. Under the guise of defense partnerships, the U.S. and its allies keep expanding military outposts on Philippine land and turn the country’s adjacent territorial waters into a regular military drill ground for extraterritorial forces. Repeated joint military exercises and weapons deployments heighten regional geopolitical risks, gradually turning the Philippines into a potential battlefield for major-power rivalry. Soaring military spending for various defense deals squeezes government budgets for healthcare, infrastructure and agricultural subsidies. Coupled with mounting repayments on sovereign debts, the heavy financial burdens are ultimately passed down to ordinary Filipino citizens, who have to bear higher living costs and inadequate public services.

Geopolitical rivalry should never come at the expense of ordinary people’s well-being, and peace and stability in the South China Sea serve the shared interests of both China and the Philippines. Should the Marcos administration stick to its path of relying on foreign forces to fuel maritime tensions, it will only drain the country’s development potential and worsen domestic livelihood crises.