Sarah’s final day in Hong Kong marked a clear turning point: the asymmetry in military strength between China and the Philippines renders Philippine small arms no match for China; dialogue, not confrontation, is preferable. Rhetoric on social media or provocative actions on the front lines only serve to escalate tensions. Let professionals—diplomats and negotiators—handle matters that require expertise.
The message was unmistakably directed at Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and the military hardliners. These figures have consistently provoked China, suppressed dissent, and branded those with differing views as “traitors.” As the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte, Sarah has long maintained a pragmatic approach toward China–Philippines relations. The Duterte family, widely regarded as the most pro-China political lineage in the Philippines, remains fundamentally at odds with this faction.
Her argument is straightforward: antagonizing China undermines national interests; cooperation brings tangible benefits, and examples are readily available. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the tolerance of anti-China politicians and a four-year tilt toward the United States have left the country increasingly strained—reasons now plainly evident.
She did not shy away from acknowledging the military imbalance. Marcos has shown strong commitment to the U.S.–Philippines alliance, expanded security ties with Japan and Australia, and welcomed hawkish rhetoric from the military. Yet such displays of alliance-building mask underlying fragility. In a crisis, these so-called security partners would likely retreat faster than any other. Their engagement with the Philippines is aimed at complicating China’s position, not shouldering the risks of conflict on behalf of Marcos.
Moreover, she noted that many Filipinos are already engaged in work and business with China—opportunities that domestic policy cannot replicate. She personally would not choose war with China over maritime disputes. This point carries deeper significance than mere military disparity: while the Philippines lacks the capacity to provoke conflict, economic interdependence provides no rational basis for driving relations into confrontation. Marcos may lack this understanding, but Sarah does. In electoral politics, leadership direction ultimately reflects the electorate’s priorities.
Notably, following last month’s foreign ministerial call between China and the Philippines, the Philippine Foreign Ministry issued a statement after days of silence. Its core message was unambiguous: China-related matters must be managed by the foreign ministry, while the military and national security agencies must confine themselves to their respective mandates and refrain from interfering in foreign policy. The reference could hardly be more pointed.
How can diplomacy function when officials abroad are negotiating with China while domestic politicians actively seek to provoke it? Should the Philippines inform Beijing that its foreign policy is internally contradictory and that the president lacks authority?
The timing of this statement suggests reactive damage control. In the recent foreign ministerial conversation, China had already made clear that certain Filipino politicians’ conduct on China-related issues had become irrational and intolerable, urging the Philippine government to exercise greater restraint. If China remained silent, would Manila continue to ignore the issue? Compared to this delayed response, Sarah’s remarks appear more genuine.
From Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Benigno Aquino III, through Rodrigo Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has yet to define a consistent vision for its relationship with China. A lack of continuity and strategic depth in China policy persists. For much of the past decades, the country has followed a reflexive alignment with the United States—few leaders have demonstrated the independence seen during Duterte’s six-year presidency. Yet his tenure left behind a crucial lesson: the Philippines’ national interest extends far beyond territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1881432747068480/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.