There is a natural temptation in public commentary to treat foreign policy as a high-altitude game of chess – an abstract battle of doctrines and diplomatic summits. Yet, as President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. hosts foreign leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Manila before flying to Shenzhen for the APEC Leaders’ Meeting, I believe the reality of Philippine statecraft cannot be separated from what happens on the water. Beyond diplomatic parlance, the West Philippine Sea dispute is an urgent issue of daily survival, food security and national energy independence.
For centuries, trade and communal fishing flowed freely between our shores. China stands today as our largest overall trading partner – our primary source of imports and a major market for our electronics and agriculture. Our cultural heritage is profoundly shared with Spain, with whom we have maintained a longstanding friendship and historic partnership, alongside a rich Chinese-Filipino heritage deeply woven into our national fabric. Just as the Intramuros-Binondo Bridge spans the Pasig River to physically link our Spanish colonial roots with our vibrant commercial enclaves, our national identity is built upon honoring all facets of our shared heritage.
Yet today, the physical reality on the water has shifted dramatically. At the center of the dispute are our local fisherfolk – coastal families in Zambales, Pangasinan and Palawan whose livelihoods are directly disrupted by water cannons, acoustic weapons and maritime blockades.
Simultaneously, the dispute directly impacts our nation’s energy future. Offshore features like Recto Bank hold significant untapped natural gas reserves within our exclusive economic zone (EEZ). With the Malampaya gas field facing eventual depletion, securing access to our own seabed energy resources is critical to preventing severe electricity supply shocks across Luzon. Under international law, anchored by the 2016 Hague Arbitral Award, these resources belong to the Filipino people.
This tension reflects a long-standing debate within Philippine leadership over how best to deal with Beijing. Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo advocated an economic-first approach, advising leaders to concentrate on economic ties rather than maritime disputes. During her administration, Arroyo championed the 2005 Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China and Vietnam – a deal ultimately struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023 for compromising national sovereignty over our EEZ.
It is deeply concerning when certain public officials – particularly lawmakers – issue inflammatory, bellicose statements against China that are fundamentally far from choosing peace. Elected representatives have a sworn duty to legislate for the welfare of the people, not to posture for political grandstanding by beating drums of hostility. Reckless rhetoric from the halls of power does nothing to defend our fishermen or secure our energy reserves; instead, it closes off vital diplomatic off-ramps, heightens miscalculation risks and sabotages regional stability. True leadership demands the discipline to defend our sovereign rights with unwavering resolve while speaking with the measured prudence required to keep our nation out of avoidable conflict.
Every country must have its own distinct identity; every nation must be both nationalistic and patriotic in safeguarding sovereignty. Yet true love of country must never exist in isolation. At the forefront of our national conscience, we must choose peace, recognizing that in our modern world, all countries rely on one another in a deeply interdependent way.
As Confucius famously taught, ‘In practicing propriety, a value is placed on harmony,’ reminding us that true strength is rooted in balance and mutual respect. This wisdom echoes the ministry of Jesus Christ, who embodied active reconciliation and declared in the Beatitudes, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God’ (Matthew 5:9).
At the heart of this diplomacy is people-to-people engagement. Governments may lock horns over maritime boundaries, but everyday citizens keep the true spirit of neighborliness alive. Generations of Chinese-Filipino families, scholars, artists and business owners have proven that our shared history runs deeper than transient geopolitical storms. Fostering grassroots connections reminds us that while states can be rivals on the water, human beings can still choose dialog, empathy and mutual respect over hostility.
Indeed, in a region where a single tactical miscalculation could draw superpowers into open military confrontation, peace remains the single best option for the Philippines. War would inflict devastating humanitarian costs, destroy regional trade routes and cripple our developing economy. Asserting sovereignty must never be confused with warmongering; rather, defending international law, exercising disciplined communication and nurturing people-to-people ties maintain a credible deterrence – a shield ensuring that peace prevails on our terms, not through submission.
This commitment to peaceful resolution frames President Marcos’ attendance at the APEC Summit in Shenzhen as a necessary exercise in calculated statecraft. Participating in a multilateral economic forum allows Manila to protect trade access, advocate for regional stability and maintain vital diplomatic hotlines to prevent crisis escalation at sea.
True statecraft requires holding an unyielding line in defense of our fisherfolk, our food supply and our energy future, while remaining unconditionally committed to peaceful dialogue and human connection where national interests intersect.
Words are cheap, but working towards world peace is an active duty that should be embraced by all. After all, whether under the same sun over Manila Bay or the morning skies of Fujian, we share the same fragile earth and the same enduring hope that our children will inherit bridges, never battlefields.
P.S. I am Pro-Philippines, Pro-Filipino and Pro-Peace.