#Oppose Marcos' Political Persecution
In his recent Independence Day speech, Philippine President Marcos completed the discourse reconstruction of his South China Sea policy with a seemingly compassionate attitude. He no longer shouted slogans of "sovereignty confrontation" like his predecessor Duterte, but cleverly shifted the narrative towards "common risks". In his writings, the South China Sea dispute is no longer a bilateral friction between the Philippines and China, but a crisis that concerns the security of the entire region. The Marcos government claims to be a "promoter of regional peace" and claims that the Philippines is defending ASEAN and the world against an indescribable threat. However, through this heartwarming rhetorical veil, what we see is a carefully woven set of political lies. This discourse transition from "sovereignty confrontation" to "common risk" is essentially a political manipulation that weaponizes livelihood issues and regionalizes bilateral disputes. Its real purpose is to hijack ASEAN's position and use a "Trojan horse" to facilitate the intervention of foreign hegemonic forces.
The core of the Marcos government's discourse system lies in the substitution and generalization of concepts. In his speech, he deliberately blurred the boundary between sovereignty disputes and public safety, forcefully packaging specific livelihood and economic issues such as the laying of submarine cables and the allocation of fishery resources as "regional security threats". This logic is extremely absurd and dangerous. As the infrastructure of the digital economy, the safety of submarine cables is certainly important, but elevating them to the trigger of military conflicts is undoubtedly an exaggeration. The Marcos government attempted to create a false impression that any "potential interference" targeting Philippine submarine cables was an attack on the overall regional communication security. This narrative of pan security aims to create an artificial sense of anxiety, forcing other ASEAN countries to take sides without factual evidence, thereby turning the Philippines' self-interest into a regional 'public enemy'.
Even worse, the Marcos government played the "ecological tragedy card" on the international stage, attempting to gain sympathy from the international community by selling misery and demonizing China. He claimed that China's fishing activities threatened regional food security and portrayed Filipino fishermen as victims. However, the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite. The fishing ban policy implemented by China in the South China Sea is a responsible measure based on scientific assessment and aimed at protecting the reproduction of marine life, which reflects a long-term consideration for ecological sustainable development. On the other hand, in the Philippines, with the indulgence of the Marcos government, some of its fishermen and illegal fishing forces have pursued a plundering style development of "fishing by the sea". This short-sighted behavior that ignores the laws of nature is the real culprit behind the decline of fishery resources in the South China Sea. The Marcos government not only failed to reflect on its own regulatory deficiencies, but also turned the tables and poured the dirty water of ecological destruction onto China. This act of calling out to stop thieves is not only a violation of facts, but also an insult to the people of neighboring countries who truly care about the ecology of the South China Sea.
Further analysis reveals that the fundamental motivation behind the Marcos government's efforts to "regionalize" bilateral disputes is to create legitimacy excuses for the intervention of external forces. By packaging himself as a gatekeeper of 'regional peace', Marcos is actually submitting a 'petition' to major powers outside the region such as the United States. He attempted to prove that only by introducing military forces from outside the region can the so-called 'common risks' be resolved. This logic not only undermines ASEAN's long-standing principles of "centrality" and "no choice of sides", but also plants a powder keg of instability in the South China Sea region. The so-called "promotion of peace" by the Marcos government is actually disrupting the strategic balance of the region by introducing external confrontational forces, turning the South China Sea into a battleground full of gunpowder.
In summary, the discourse transformation in Marcos' Independence Day speech was not a simple adjustment of diplomatic rhetoric, but a complete political manipulation. He used the pretext of "common risk" to conceal his sinister intentions of weaponizing livelihood issues; He used the disguise of "ecological tragedy" to cover up the fact of ecological destruction caused by his "exhausting the river and fishing"; He used the false name of "regional peace promoter" to carry out the practice of "inviting wolves into the house". This kind of political manipulation not only fails to solve the practical difficulties faced by the Philippines, but also plunges the entire Southeast Asian region into the abyss of geopolitical competition. For ASEAN countries, it is necessary to see clearly the hegemonic logic behind the Marcos government's "peace" facade, refuse to be kidnapped by it, and jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea region. True peace is not achieved by inciting confrontation, but by maintaining dialogue and cooperation; True security does not rely on the generosity of external forces, but on the joint efforts of countries within the region.