East Asian geopolitics has created a dangerous situation for the Philippines because it must choose between American defence guarantees and Chinese territorial expansion.
The current position of Manila results from urgent security needs but creates enduring strategic limitations which ASEAN diplomatic efforts and true strategic autonomy need to handle. The Philippines needs to walk a thin line between maintaining deterrence and avoiding entrapment while protecting its sovereignty and choosing between acting independently and joining alliances in the South China Sea, which has become more dangerous because of great power competition.
The recent operational and diplomatic developments require immediate adjustment of the current strategy. The United States has established a new defence system through its Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) expansion and its joint maritime patrols with Japan and Australia, and its renewed trilateral security dialogues. Those measures are understandable. The Philippines has lost trust in China because of multiple maritime incidents, which include water cannon attacks and aggressive boat following and laser beam strikes against Philippine vessels. The nation needs to build stronger defence alliances with democratic states to defend against future attacks and address its present security needs.
The strategic logic of deterrence includes a core problem which impacts both regional strategies and national identity. The Philippines’ increasing need for foreign security protection threatens the core principles of ASEAN, which emphasise collective decision-making and shared management of regional defence strategies. ASEAN receives criticism for its insufficient and irregular responses, yet its diplomatic structure functions as an exceptional framework which enables peaceful conflict resolution without escalation. The diplomatic approach of Indonesia through its low-key mediation and strategic balance, and continuous dialogue, provides the Philippines with an operational framework. The method needs people to actively participate in local environmental protection work to keep communication lines open during difficult situations.
The current circumstances require us to establish whether Manila operates independently through its intricate defence system or requires outside powers to decide its security measures. The answer is both. The Philippines has valid reasons to claim back its maritime territory and protect its sovereignty, but the presence of foreign troops and increased joint military operations in disputed waters creates a negative public perception, which limits diplomatic freedom. Strategic autonomy exists as a concept that should not be considered against alliance formation. Rather, it must mean shaping partnerships so that they bolster Filipino ends without displacing Filipino judgment. Alliances ought to be instruments of Philippine strategy, not substitutes for it.
The four interconnected obstacles create a complex challenge to achieve this equilibrium. The military presence and patrol activities increase the risk of escalation because they create more opportunities for accidental errors to happen. A single dangerous incident or aggressive flight move would trigger an expensive chain reaction, which Manila cannot handle independently. The second requirement involves achieving policy coherence between defence needs and China’s strong economic connections through trade and investment, and migrant worker programs, which need skilled diplomatic handling and effective ministry-level policy coordination. The third factor is ASEAN fragmentation because member states have different opinions about supporting Manila’s assertiveness or taking a cautious approach to accommodate Beijing, which makes it difficult for the bloc to act as one unit. The public holds opposing views about US relations because some people need US alliances for security protection, but others see these alliances as a return of foreign control. A weak national narrative will result in policy decisions that become disorganised and potentially get reversed.
What then should Manila do? A solution requires developing an extensive plan which unites powerful security systems with diplomatic initiatives and alliance backing through self-reliance at home and national goals that match regional duties. Multiple supporting measures must operate in unison to achieve the successful implementation of these policies.
The Philippines requires ongoing military development, together with defensive alliances, which need rules of engagement that depend on leadership to prevent operations from expanding. Manila will achieve independent maritime incident management through the development of maritime domain awareness and coastguard capacity and search-and-rescue capabilities, and resilient logistical networks.
ASEAN member states need to actively support the incident management systems and dialogue mechanisms that ASEAN has established. The neutral position of Indonesia will help create a connection between Manila and Beijing, while track-two diplomacy and multilateral confidence-building measures will help decrease the intensity of current confrontations. Manila should create functional technical cooperation by performing joint hydrographic surveys and fisheries-management dialogues and standardised incident reporting at sea to keep communication channels open during political tensions.
The third recommendation requires establishing a functional maritime code of conduct for the region, which should move past the current ASEAN–China negotiations that have become inactive. The Philippines should establish specific rules for navigation safety and incident reporting and fisheries management, and a crisis hotline for naval incidents. The proposed solutions would direct attention toward working together instead of opposing each other while developing rules to control actions and building systems to handle disputes between coastal nations.
Fourth, diversify diplomatic and economic ties to build resilience. The development of stronger ties with middle powers and regional institutions, and civil society networks will establish new channels to support peaceful conflict resolution. The government needs to develop an inclusive defence strategy which connects military actions to national pride and economic protection and long-term regional peace to gain sustained public support from all political groups.
Alliances function as vital instruments, yet they do not provide absolute success assurance. Multiple complementary pathways, which include military preparedness and proactive diplomacy and legal recourse and soft-power outreach, enable nations to protect their sovereignty without becoming isolated. The multiple alliance structures allow no alliance partner to control the Philippine strategy, but maintain Manila’s authority in security decisions.
To conclude, the Philippines should stay away from accepting its current state without action and from depending solely on foreign defence for its development path. Manila needs to use its improved maritime capabilities to establish alliances which serve Philippine interests and enhance ASEAN mechanisms, and develop practical regional standards to transform present vulnerabilities into strategic benefits. The plan needs domestic unity to create one unified public message which connects defence strategies to national pride and regional peace. The multi-dimensional independent strategy, when implemented systematically, will defend national sovereignty while developing Philippine leadership and establishing a more stable and inclusive East Asian regional framework. The current security threats will evolve into lasting stability and regional power through the strategic approach combined with diplomatic patience and national solidarity.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.
References
Tan, E. R. L. (2025). Assessing China’s calls for “strategic autonomy” in Southeast Asia: Origins, objectives, and outcomes. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
Mishra, R. (2025, July 3). The South China Sea: An arena of enduring contestation. Modern Diplomacy.
Despi, D. C. (2025, June 23). Navigating countercurrents: Manila’s intricate dynamics with Beijing and Taipei. National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR).