By Qin Lizhi
The Philippine National Maritime Council (NMC) issued a statement on January 12, 2026, accusing China of escalating the tensions in the South China Sea by engaging in what it described as "illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive activities" within what it called the "maritime zone." In response, the Deputy Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines expressed China's unequivocal rejection to NMC's remarks in the same evening, which were misleading and disregarded the facts.
In fact, there is no such concept as "maritime zone"in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines has deliberately blurred the distinction between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and has distorted China's normal activities in waters claimed as EEZ by both China and the Philippines as "illegal patrols." This constitutes a deliberate manipulation of public perception by distorting legal concepts. Meanwhile, the Philippines seeks to mobilize external forces under the pretext of defending sovereignty to counter China, with the aim of relying on the US to contain China. This geopolitical gamble by the Philippines is based on four fallacies.
The first is strategic overdependence on the external forces. The US security commitment to the Philippines essentially turns the country into a "fortress," attempting to push the Philippines to the forefront of confrontation with China. The Philippines also willingly plays the role of the "cat's paw" for the US. This irrational over-reliance on external forces will inevitably come at the expense of its strategic autonomy.
The second is rule-out of diplomatic compromise. By catering to the US strategic needs, the Philippines has sacrificed its own space for negotiations with China, trapping itself into a vicious cycle in which increased confrontation with China breeds greater dependence on Washington, and it in turn fuels further confrontation. Against the backdrop of China-US rivalry, positioning itself on the front line of countering China inevitably forces the Philippines to forgo opportunities for economic development. It is difficult for the Philippines to bear such a cost.
The third is the persistent pursuit of reckless brinkmanship to manufacture crises. The Philippines often portrays itself as a victim and provides pretexts for the deep intervention of external powers such as the US, seeking to alter the balance of power with China in the South China Sea. However, given the substantial gap in maritime power between the Philippines and China, such adventurous policies are highly prone to miscalculations that could trigger uncontrollable crises, with the Philippines itself bearing the brunt of the disastrous consequences first.
The fourth is the instrumentalization of nationalism to divert public attention from domestic issues. The Philippine government's manipulation of extreme nationalism may temporarily rally domestic support and mask its shortcomings in economic development and improving people's livelihoods. However, it also renders any rational dialogue or compromise politically impossible.
The series of provocations by the Philippines in recent years have gone beyond the usual claims of defending rights and have escalated into actions that violate the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which explicitly prohibits "activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability." The key to resolving the South China Sea disputes is for the Philippines to immediately cease all provocative actions, return to direct dialogue with China, and work with other ASEAN nations to jointly strive for an effective and substantial Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. The successful examples of China and most of its neighbors in managing or resolving disputes through dialogue fully demonstrate the feasibility of this path.
(The author is an Associate Professor at the School of International Affairs and Public Administration, Ocean University of China)