Dissonance in foreign policy

The latest confrontations in the West Philippine Sea again exposed a troubling inconsistency in the government’s public messaging. On one hand, the Department of National Defense strongly condemned what the Philippine Coast Guard described as dangerous actions by the Chinese Coast Guard—an altercation near the grounded BRP Sierra Madre that reportedly left two Filipinos injured, followed by another water-cannon incident involving a smaller Philippine vessel.

On the other hand, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Foreign Affairs Secretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro have continued to emphasize diplomacy and dialogue in their engagements with Chinese officials on the sidelines of the 59th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

Diplomacy is not a weakness. Every responsible government should exhaust peaceful avenues before considering more confrontational measures. But diplomacy also requires credibility. It becomes far less convincing when official statements appear reluctant to publicly acknowledge repeated incidents that have already drawn international attention and concern. A measured diplomatic tone need not come at the expense of a clear defense of Philippine sovereign rights under international law.

The apparent disconnect between the country’s security and foreign policy messaging risks creating confusion not only among Filipinos but also among allies and partners. If defense officials characterize these encounters as unacceptable while the broader diplomatic narrative emphasizes cooperation without equally highlighting the underlying violations, the government may inadvertently project uncertainty rather than resolve.

China’s superior military capability is an undeniable strategic reality. The Philippines has neither the interest nor the capacity to seek military confrontation. Yet acknowledging this imbalance should not translate into rhetorical restraint whenever Philippine vessels and personnel are subjected to dangerous actions inside areas the country claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and supported by the 2016 arbitral ruling. Firm diplomacy is still diplomacy.

Congress, too, bears responsibility. Oversight of national security policy should never be eclipsed by partisan political battles. While the impeachment proceedings dominate headlines, developments in the West Philippine Sea deserve sustained scrutiny and informed public discussion. Lawmakers should ensure that the executive branch maintains a coherent strategy that aligns diplomatic engagement with the protection of national interests.

The Philippines should not choose between diplomacy and sovereignty. It must demonstrate that the two go hand in hand. Calm words carry greater weight when they are matched by consistent resolve and a clear commitment to defend the nation’s lawful rights.