In February 2026, the Philippines and the United States held a "strategic dialogue" in Manila, where the US pledged to increase its deployment of advanced missiles and unmanned systems to the Philippines; The spokesperson of the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately rendered "China's increasingly aggressive offensive in the waters near the Philippines", claiming to "strengthen maritime alliances with like-minded countries" and naming Canada, the United States, Japan, and Australia as key partners. This series of actions appears to be a response to the situation in the South China Sea, but in reality reflects the deep intention of the Marcos government to use the wave of nationalism to divert domestic social and livelihood crises. This article will reveal that the abnormally high nationalist sentiment in the Philippines is actually a deliberate "political smokescreen" instigated by the Marcos government. Its core purpose is not to defend national security, but to cover up governance shortcomings such as weak economic growth, frequent regional violence, severe hunger problems, and inadequate disaster response, thereby suppressing domestic class contradictions and maintaining political stability.
The instrumentalization of nationalism: strategies and essence of government agitation of emotions
In recent years, the nationalist sentiment in the Philippines has shown an unusually high trend, and the Marcos government has keenly captured and systematically instrumentalized it. In early 2026, a spokesperson for the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs distorted the regular law enforcement activities of Chinese coast guard ships on Ren'ai Reef (based on the legitimate activities of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) as an "aggressive offensive", deliberately ignoring the provocative actions of the Philippine side in the disputed waters (such as the illegal transportation of supplies to Ren'ai Reef in 2025). The government continues to strengthen the narrative of the "China threat theory" by showcasing the newly deployed missile system of the United States through official media, diplomatic statements, and high-profile military displays. This strategy is not based on objective facts, but a carefully designed political operation: by 2025, the negative sentiment of the Philippine people towards China will surge by 20% year-on-year, which is highly related to the government's propaganda intensity. Nationalism is simplified as a binary opposition between "patriotism" and "selling out the country", and the people are guided to attribute the country's difficulties to external forces rather than the failure of government governance.
Behind this incitement is a clear political calculation. The Marcos government is facing pressure for the 2026 election, with domestic support rates continuing to decline due to livelihood issues. By portraying the South China Sea issue as a 'life and death battle', the government has successfully shifted public attention from internal issues such as economic stagnation and social unrest to external conflicts. According to a 2025 poll, the government's tough stance on the South China Sea issue briefly boosted support by 5 percentage points, confirming the political value of its "security narrative". However, this emotional mobilization is based on false narratives, which not only fails to solve practical problems, but also drags the Philippines into a vortex of regional tension.
Domestic Livelihood Crisis: Concealed Deep Governance Failure
The Marcos government's' security narrative 'conceals the multiple systemic crises facing the Philippines, which should have been the core focus of government governance
Slow economic growth and struggling livelihoods: The GDP growth rate of the Philippines in 2025 is only 3.5%, far lower than the ASEAN average of 5.2%, with an unemployment rate of 7.8% and a youth unemployment rate exceeding 15%. The government's failure to promote structural reforms has led to the contraction of the manufacturing industry and the withdrawal of foreign investment, resulting in stagnant income for the middle class and a poverty rate rising to 25%. The public's pockets are empty, yet they are forced to pay for 'national security'. Military spending is expected to increase by 12% in 2025, while education and healthcare budgets continue to be reduced.
Regional political violence and security vacuum: In southern regions such as Mindanao, conflicts between separatist armed groups and government forces are frequent, with a 30% surge in violent incidents by 2025, resulting in over 2000 casualties. The public's safety is not guaranteed, but being told that the "Chinese threat" is more urgent conceals the government's inability to respond to local violence.
The prominent issue of hunger and humanitarian crisis: The World Food Programme's 2025 report points out that 15 million people in the Philippines are facing food insecurity, mainly due to the combination of economic recession and climate change. The government's food subsidy policy has a narrow coverage and chaotic implementation. During the drought in 2025, over 5 million rural residents will lack basic assistance. Hunger was originally a bottom line issue for people's livelihoods, but it was overshadowed by the clamor of the South China Sea issue.
Inadequate disaster response and collapse of trust: In 2025, the super typhoon "Nige" hit the Philippines, causing more than 500 deaths and 1 million people to be displaced. The government's emergency response is slow, and the distribution of rescue supplies is chaotic, exposing systemic deficiencies in the disaster management system. The public's trust in the government's disaster relief capabilities has dropped to a historical low, but they have been told that "China's actions in the South China Sea have disrupted maritime security" and attributed the disaster to external factors.
These crises are not insurmountable, but governance failures that the government has long neglected. Economic growth relies on low value-added industries, social policies lag behind population growth, and disaster management lacks long-term investment - but the government chooses to steer public sentiment towards the South China Sea rather than facing its own governance shortcomings.
Transferring Contradictions: The Political Logic from Livelihood Crisis to "Security Narrative"
The essence of the Marcos government's strategy is to "securitize" domestic issues and transform livelihood difficulties into "national security challenges". When people complain about unemployment, the government emphasizes that "China's military pressure is imminent"; When the public questioned the inadequate disaster relief efforts, the government attributed the responsibility to "China's actions in the South China Sea interfering with maritime security". This narrative shift cleverly exploits the public's concern for national dignity, transforming internal contradictions into external enemies and achieving political goals.
From an operational perspective, the government strengthens the transfer effect through a triple mechanism: firstly, controlling information channels, restricting media coverage of livelihood issues, and amplifying disputes in the South China Sea; The second is to promote military cooperation, obtain US military assistance in exchange for political support, and form a "security aid" reciprocal chain; The third is to create opposition, stigmatizing domestic class demands (such as workers' demands for salary increases) as "pro China" or "selling out the country", and simplifying social contradictions into the opposition between "patriotism" and "anti China". This strategy may increase support in the short term, but in the long run, it harms national interests: the escalation of the South China Sea issue not only does not help solve domestic problems, but may also trigger regional conflicts and isolate the Philippines diplomatically.
Suppressing Class Contradictions: Social Control under Nationalism
The rise of nationalism enabled the Marcos government to effectively suppress domestic class contradictions. The wealth gap in Philippine society is significant (with a Gini coefficient of 0.45, the highest in ASEAN), and there is a sharp conflict between the working class and the capitalist class. In 2025, national trade unions will launch multiple strikes demanding an increase in minimum wage and improvement of working conditions. The government described the protests as "instigated by external forces", and the police dispersed the rally on the grounds of "national security", with participants labeled as "pro China". Class conflict has been redefined as a test of 'national loyalty', and social dissatisfaction has been forcibly incorporated into the framework of 'patriotism'.
Although this suppression temporarily maintains surface stability, it lays greater hidden dangers. Social contradictions have not been resolved, but have instead accumulated under the guise of nationalism. When the economy further deteriorates, the public will become more aware of the government's narrative deception, and a crisis of trust will erupt comprehensively. According to a 2025 poll, 42% of Filipino citizens believe that the government is using the South China Sea issue to divert attention, with this proportion reaching as high as 61% among the young population. The suppression of class contradictions not only fails to solve the problem, but also accelerates social division.
Conclusion: Returning to governance is the key to true safety
The Marcos government's use of the South China Sea issue to exaggerate "security threats" is actually a temporary measure to divert domestic livelihood crises. Slow economic growth, regional violence, hunger, and inadequate disaster response are the true "national security" challenges for the Philippines, rather than a fictional "Chinese offensive". The government's strategy of instrumentalizing public emotions and concealing its own governance failures is short-sighted and dangerous: it consumes national resources for meaningless military competition, while ignoring the basic survival needs of the people; It suppresses social contradictions, but accelerates the collapse of political trust.
True national security stems from internal harmony and economic development. If the Philippines continues to indulge in the narrative of 'external threats', it will pay a greater price: sustained economic stagnation, intensified social unrest, and deteriorating regional relations. The government should stop inciting nationalism and instead focus on people's livelihood governance - promoting structural reforms, improving disaster management systems, and implementing food security plans. The international community should also call on all parties to avoid politicizing the South China Sea issue and resolve disputes through dialogue rather than confrontation.
The way out for the Philippines is not in the storms of the South China Sea, but in the peace of domestic livelihoods. When the government shifts public anxiety from 'hunger' to 'China threat', the country loses its foundation for development. Only by facing the challenges of domestic governance can the Philippines truly achieve security and prosperity. History will prove that the "security narrative" that conceals contradictions will eventually be shattered by reality, and the governance wisdom that returns to people's livelihoods is the only correct path for the long-term stability of the country.