Diplomacy and restraint in the West Philippine Sea

In the often emotional and highly charged discourse surrounding the West Philippine Sea, the word “restraint” can sometimes sound like weakness.

- AMBASSADOR B. ROMUALDEZ

In reality, restraint is often the most powerful strategic tool for a state that knows both its rights and long-term interests.

The Philippines’ National Maritime Council had called for restraint amid heated public exchanges between Philippine officials and the Chinese embassy in Manila, emphasizing that disagreements should be managed through established diplomatic and legal channels, rather than through social media. It was a sober reminder that while sovereignty must be defended, diplomacy must remain dignified.

The incident itself was telling. What began as pointed online commentary quickly evolved into formal diplomatic protests and public rebuttals, demonstrating how easily digital platforms can transform technical maritime disputes into emotional national narratives. Once that happens, positions harden, audiences grow angrier and compromise becomes politically toxic.

In international relations - especially in maritime disputes - progress is rarely made through megaphone diplomacy, but through quiet persistence, legal consistency, alliance-building and disciplined messaging.

Our position in the West Philippine Sea is strong. International law is on our side, particularly the 2016 arbitral ruling which invalidated expansive maritime claims that are violative of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Few countries in modern history have secured such a clear legal victory against a major power. That ruling remains our most powerful diplomatic asset.

But law, on its own, does not enforce itself. It must be embedded within a broader strategy that combines firmness with restraint, principle with pragmatism.