“When major powers treat commitments as optional, the entire system’s credibility weakens, encouraging others to follow suit”
Emmanuel Macron’s warning at Davos that we are entering a “world without rules” captures a profound shift in international relations.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum, he observed that powerful states increasingly bypass international norms when those rules conflict with immediate interests. This represents a dangerous return to “the law of the strongest,” where coercion replaces cooperation and might trumps multilateral governance.
Mark Carney, incoming Canadian Prime Minister, echoed this concern, noting that “the rules-based international order that has underpinned our prosperity and security for decades is fraying.”
This erosion has direct implications for the Philippines.
The shift toward unilateralism gained momentum under Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine, which prioritized transactional deals over collective security. International agreements became disposable, judged solely by short-term national benefit.
When major powers treat commitments as optional, the entire system’s credibility weakens, encouraging others to follow suit.
For the Philippines, this creates strategic uncertainty. Our Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States has long anchored our security, particularly against China’s South China Sea aggression. But in a world where rules matter less, the predictability of U.S. commitments declines.
Transactional diplomacy makes crisis responses less reliable, potentially forcing Manila to hedge between its historic ally and engagement with Beijing.
The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling favoring Philippine maritime claims offered legal protection in a rule-based system. As global norms erode, such victories lose meaning.
China’s island-building, militarization, and territorial expansion face diminishing international pushback. Disputes increasingly settle through power projection rather than diplomacy, raising the risk of military clashes.
Taiwan’s situation compounds these dangers. US deterrence depends on credibility and consistency. If Washington’s support appears transactional, China may feel emboldened to escalate. Any Taiwan conflict would inevitably involve the Philippines, given our geographic proximity and alliance commitments.
The immediate question: Will developments in Europe and Greenland, where Trump pressured Denmark despite treaty obligations, embolden Beijing toward more aggressive action in our waters or against Taiwan?
The answer is troubling.
When even long-standing allies face U.S. coercion, smaller nations must recognize that alliance reliability has changed.
The Mutual Defense Treaty remains legally binding, but political shifts affect how quickly or decisively Washington responds. Recent U.S. pressure on Greenland demonstrates that traditional alliance norms no longer guarantee predictable behavior.
This demands recalibration, not abandonment, of our U.S. partnership. While America remains our most critical security ally, we cannot rely solely on Washington’s protection. The Philippines must strengthen domestic defense capabilities, diversify security partnerships, and deepen ASEAN coordination.
Strategic autonomy requires abandoning the neoliberal economic orthodoxy our economic managers have championed for decades.
Reliance on foreign investment, deregulation, and export-oriented growth has left us vulnerable when global uncertainty demands self-reliance.
The Philippines must embrace industrial policy that builds domestic manufacturing capacity and ensures food and energy security.
Equally important is shifting from development aggression characterized by extractive projects that displace communities toward community-based sustainable development that strengthens resilience and builds economic security from the ground up.
The broader Southeast Asian response matters equally. As major powers prioritize unilateral action, smaller states face greater vulnerability. ASEAN unity and collective defense mechanisms become crucial for maintaining regional stability. We must coordinate responses to maritime coercion while building military capacity to deter aggression.
Economic coercion presents another challenge. Trump’s use of tariffs and sanctions as diplomatic weapons, even against allies, signals that disputes settle through economic force rather than established mechanisms.
A “world without rules” creates cascading risks: diminished alliance reliability, heightened coercion vulnerability, and increased conflict probability in maritime disputes.
The erosion of international norms favors unilateral action over diplomacy, particularly threatening smaller nations dependent on legal frameworks for protection.
Yet this reality also presents opportunity.
Recognizing that we operate in a more unstable environment allows strategic adaptation. The Philippines must balance U.S. relations against regional partnerships, strengthen defense independently of alliance guarantees, and build multilateral frameworks that provide alternative security structures.
Macron and Carney warn that without renewed commitment to international law and collective responsibility, the world drifts toward coercion-dominated chaos.
For the Philippines, this means preparing for a future where even loyal allies face pressure and uncertainty, where maritime disputes settle through power rather than principle, and where our security depends increasingly on our own capabilities and regional cooperation.
The “world without rules” is not hypothetical but emerging reality.
How we navigate this transformation will determine whether the Philippines remains vulnerable to great power competition or develops resilience through diversified partnerships, strengthened capabilities, and unwavering commitment to our territorial and maritime sovereignty.
