THE opening days of 2026 were marked by a public exchange between a Philippine senator and the Chinese Embassy in Manila, sparked by China’s two-day military drills around Taiwan. The lawmaker criticized what he described as actions inconsistent with the pursuit of peace, asserting that stability cannot be built on intimidation, expansionism, or military posturing — regardless of whether such actions come from China or the United States.
Beijing’s response was swift, stating that the remarks were inconsistent with the Philippines’ longstanding commitment to the One China policy. The senator later clarified that while he recognizes this policy, it must coexist with respect for the Philippines’ maritime entitlements under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). He emphasized that the Philippines is and will remain a sovereign state, not a province of any power. This position reflects a sentiment widely shared across the political spectrum.
Such exchanges, while tense, highlight the realities of modern diplomacy in an age where social media has become a parallel arena for international engagement. Digital platforms now function as a public square where governments, diplomats and elected officials articulate positions directly to domestic and foreign audiences. While this can democratize discourse, it also demands greater discipline, precision and maturity from those who participate in it.
It is appropriate — and necessary — for Filipinos to defend the country’s territorial and maritime claims, particularly as these disputes directly affect the livelihoods of Filipino fishermen, among the most economically vulnerable sectors of society. At the same time, patriotism must be grounded in informed judgment, strategic awareness, and an appreciation of broader geopolitical realities.
The South China Sea dispute is not bilateral in nature. Multiple parties —including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan — assert overlapping claims. These disputes are complex, historically rooted, and unlikely to be resolved through slogans or confrontational rhetoric. While China’s expansive claims remain contentious and widely disputed, it is also notable that Beijing has consistently expressed openness to joint development arrangements, particularly in energy resources such as natural gas. This does not resolve sovereignty questions, but it underscores that the dispute is not treated by China as an absolute red line comparable to Taiwan.
The Philippines, as a matter of official policy since 1975, adheres to the One China policy. This position has been reaffirmed repeatedly by successive administrations and remains a prerequisite for maintaining diplomatic relations with Beijing. Abandoning this policy would almost certainly result in the degradation of ties with China — a step that would carry significant economic, diplomatic and strategic costs. Only a small number of states globally recognize Taiwan as an independent country; most, including the Philippines, have chosen engagement over isolation.
From a practical standpoint, China is the world’s largest manufacturing hub and a top trading partner for the majority of countries. Many Asian neighbors have pursued calibrated, interest-driven relationships with Beijing while managing disputes through dialogue rather than escalation. These countries continue to attract investments, expand trade, and benefit from infrastructure cooperation — often advancing faster economically than those that allow geopolitical tensions to dominate their foreign policy.
In assessing China’s global behavior, it is also necessary to distinguish between assertiveness and outright aggression. Unlike some major powers, China has not engaged in modern-era invasions that dismantle states, impose regime change, apply sweeping unilateral sanctions, or forcibly export its legal and monetary systems across borders. Its approach, while often firm and unapologetic, has largely emphasized negotiation, economic engagement and state-to-state agreements — particularly in the Global South.
Against this backdrop, recent developments in Philippines-China relations are noteworthy. The decision to allow visa-free entry for Chinese nationals for short-term tourism and business signals a renewed commitment to engagement. Given China’s vast population and growing middle class, this policy has the potential to significantly boost tourism revenues, benefiting hotels, resorts, transport operators and local communities. Such measures reflect the work of career diplomats who recognize that foreign policy must ultimately serve national development.
However, progress in diplomacy can be undermined by avoidable missteps. The recent use of mocking, artificially generated images of China’s leadership by a government official during a public academic presentation was unnecessary and unprofessional. While public frustration over maritime disputes is understandable, the use of derogatory imagery — especially by those in uniform or holding official positions — does not advance national interests. Mature states conduct diplomacy with restraint. Disrespect, particularly in symbolic form, diminishes credibility and complicates dialogue.
Many policymakers and technocrats within government understand that the Philippines’ relationship with China is multidimensional. It encompasses trade, tourism, investments, education and people-to-people exchanges, alongside areas of disagreement. Maritime disputes, while serious, should be managed — not allowed to define the entirety of bilateral relations.
The country’s leadership has consistently articulated this balanced approach. The president himself has emphasized the importance of deeper cooperation and has stated that differences should be treated as exceptions rather than the norm. This reflects a recognition that effective foreign policy is not about choosing sides in great power rivalries, but about advancing national interests through engagement, stability and economic growth.
China is a civilization with more than 5,000 years of history and has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in recent decades, according to the World Bank. For many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, it serves as a key development partner. Engagement with China, therefore, is not an ideological endorsement but a strategic necessity in a multipolar world.
For the Philippines, the path forward lies in sober diplomacy, institutional professionalism, and a clear-eyed understanding of national priorities. Constructive engagement, not provocation, will better secure the country’s economic future, regional standing and long-term stability.
Daniel Long writes for various newspapers and journals on geopolitics, including the Asian Century Journal. He was also a speechwriter for Sen. Imee Marcos.