“If China maintains that sovereignty must be respected in the Middle East, it must, by the same logic, respect Philippine sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea”
WHEN China’s Defense Ministry recently labeled the United States a “war addict” and condemned military strikes on Iran as a violation of sovereignty, I found the rhetoric strikingly familiar.
Beijing’s call for respect for territorial integrity and a return to dialogue is, on its face, a noble defense of international law.
However, as I have often maintained, Sovereignty is not a rhetorical device. It is a universal standard. If it is invoked as a principle, it must be honored everywhere—not just when it serves a specific geopolitical narrative.
The Test of Consistency
If China maintains that sovereignty must be respected in the Middle East, it must, by the same logic, respect Philippine sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.
The reality on the water tells a different story. In maritime zones that international law recognizes as belonging to the Philippines, we have witnessed:
The repeated use of water cannons against Filipino vessels.
The obstruction of lawful resupply missions.
Hazardous maneuvers that endanger lives.
The 2016 arbitral ruling was clear: it rejected the sweeping “nine-dash line” and affirmed our maritime entitlements.
That ruling was binding, yet China chose to ignore it. Since then, we have seen a routine normalization of patrols and the reinforcement of artificial structures in waters that are rightfully ours.
Strategy Revealed Through Action
I view these developments not as isolated incidents, but as a clear pattern of behavior. China’s expansionism is not reactive diplomacy; it is deliberate strategic revisionism.
It is executed through incremental encroachment, sustained maritime pressure, and a calculated ambiguity that seeks to redraw the map one patrol at a time.
Strategic intent is rarely shouted from the rooftops; it is demonstrated through consistency. When actions repeat—when regulations are layered upon one another and messaging aligns with aggressive conduct—the mask falls away. No formal proclamation is needed to see the direction in which Beijing is moving. We in the Philippines recognize this trajectory for exactly what it is.
The Credibility Gap
When a nation condemns coercion abroad while sustaining pressure within the lawful maritime zones of its neighbors, its appeal to sovereignty becomes selective. This selectivity does not just affect the Philippines; it weakens the global legal order as a whole.
True authority is earned through consistency.
A nation cannot credibly defend sovereignty in distant conflicts while undermining the lawful maritime rights of those right next door.
Our Principled Stand
This is not a matter of choosing sides between global superpowers. It is about upholding what has already been affirmed under international law.
The Philippines does not seek confrontation, nor do we wish for hostility. We seek adherence to established rules. We must be clear:
Economic influence does not supersede legal obligation.
Diplomatic statements do not outweigh maritime conduct.
Sovereignty must apply without exception if it is to remain meaningful.
We understand the pattern and what is at stake. As a Republic that knows its rights, we must respond with clarity, discipline, and resolve. We stand firm—not in anger, but in the quiet, unshakeable conviction that the law belongs to the many, not just the mighty.
(The writer, holder of MNSA, MPA, MBAm Juris Doctor, PhD degrees, is Chairman Emeritus of Alyansa ng Bantay sa Kapayapaan at Demokrasya, People’s Alliance for Democracy and Reforms, Liga Independencia Pilipinas, and the Filipinos Do Not Yield Movement).
