THE speech of Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani at the Ateneo de Manila University on Oct. 2, 2026, focused on the rivalry between the United States and China. His warning was plain: the world is entering a dangerous period of great competition where international law may not protect smaller countries when it clashes with the interests of powerful states. He urged the Philippines and other Southeast Asian nations to understand the danger and avoid becoming instruments of a conflict between larger powers.
Mahbubani singled out the Philippines as especially exposed. A crisis here could affect not only the Philippines but also other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). The danger is that a dispute over maritime rights could become part of a much wider contest between Washington and Beijing.
Recent events make his warning timely. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan’s remarks about the use of force threatening and said these warranted a direct discussion. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. has described China as a regional troublemaker and reportedly suspended military-to-military communications with Beijing. Rear Adm. Roy Trinidad defended that decision, saying China used such channels as smokescreen. Some senators have called for the ambassador to be declared “persona non grata.”
The Philippines has a right to protest threats and defend its maritime rights. However, each public exchange raises a larger question: are our leaders giving equal attention to preventing escalation? Strong statements may answer a public insult, but they do not settle a dispute or reduce the risk of a clash. Cutting military communication channels may also remove a means of managing an incident before it turns into something more dangerous. President Marcos has called for a dialogue, and that position should be matched by a steady effort to keep diplomacy channels open.
Much of the public debate rests on the 2016 arbitral award, considered by some observers as an important legal victory. It rejected China’s expansive historic rights claims, where they exceeded the rights allowed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (Unclos). This, however, did not decide sovereignty over every disputed feature, and it cannot, by itself, force China to comply. The award remains a valuable legal and diplomatic asset but is not a substitute for a wider strategy.
The slogan “West Philippine Sea, atin ito!” (West Philippine Sea is ours) cannot change the balance of power or ensure that our rights will be respected. We should not abandon our claims, but we should also understand the limits of international law and use it alongside diplomacy and cooperation with other countries. Mahbubani’s point was not that international law has no value. His point is that smaller states should not assume that law alone can protect them.
We should also study Ukraine, as Mahbubani advised. While the circumstances are not the same, Ukraine shows the human cost of a conflict involving great powers and the difficulty of ending a war once it begins. We should not assume that a military alliance will remove every danger or that the goals of an ally will always match our own. The Philippines must avoid becoming a battering ram in a war shaped by others.
Mahbubani’s advice was that Asean members should be friends with both the US and China and avoid taking sides in their rivalry. We should go further and apply this principle to all nations. This is consistent with Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which commits the Philippines to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Friendship does not mean surrender. We can defend our rights in the disputed maritime area, maintain friendship with America, and still seek workable relations with China. We should also build ties with other countries rather than place all our hopes in one power. Diplomacy is not appeasement, but a way to protect our interests while keeping open the chance of a peaceful settlement.
This is the meaning of realpolitik. It is a way of dealing with other countries based on a clear view of national interests, the limits of our power, and the likely results of our choices. It does not require submission to China or automatic support for every American policy. It requires judgment. We must strengthen our defenses but military power should support a clear political aim in order to avoid drawing us into a conflict we cannot control. It is about dealing with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. It reminds us that lasting results come from understanding real power and practical choices, rather than relying on wishful thinking.
The question for President Marcos, Secretary Teodoro, our senators, and military leaders is whether their words and actions reduce the risk of war or make it harder to avoid. The Philippines must defend its sovereignty, but it must also protect its people from the costs of a great power conflict. Mahbubani has given us a warning. Article II, Section 2 gives us a constitutional guide. Our leaders should heed both. We should stand firm where our rights are at stake, speak well with all nations, and never mistake confrontation for a strategy.
Rafael P. Tuvera is a lawyer who taught law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics and diplomatic strategy with an emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context.
