China’s Strategic Revisionism and the Philippine Response

Part 1 of 4 in the series: The Discipline of Sovereignty

A Pattern, Not an Incident

For years, the Philippines has treated each maritime incident in the West Philippine Sea as an isolated episode. Dr. Jose Antonio “Ka Pep” Goitia, national security expert and civic leader, rejects that framing entirely. In his view, the pattern of Chinese conduct in Philippine waters is not accidental, nor is it reactive. It is deliberate.

“China’s expansionism is not reactive diplomacy. It is deliberate strategic revisionism, executed through incremental encroachment, sustained maritime pressure, and calculated ambiguity,” Goitia stated in a March 2026 interview with The Manila Times. He argues that when patrols become routine, when regulations follow in sequence, and when messaging remains consistent, these are no longer isolated events. They indicate direction.

What Strategic Revisionism Means

Strategic revisionism, as Goitia defines it, is the gradual reshaping of a regional order through actions that fall below the threshold of open conflict. It is not a declaration of war. It is the slow accumulation of presence, precedent, and narrative until the legal and geographic status quo has effectively been altered.

In the context of the West Philippine Sea, Goitia points to a sequence of observable conduct: routine patrols by the China Coast Guard in waters affirmed as part of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under UNCLOS, the use of water cannons against Filipino vessels on resupply missions, hazardous maneuvers near Philippine-occupied features, and the construction of permanent installations on contested features. Each action, taken alone, may appear manageable. Taken together, they constitute a sustained strategy.

The Arbitral Ruling and Its Limits

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a landmark ruling invalidating China’s expansive nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea. The ruling affirmed that maritime features such as Recto Bank fall within the Philippine EEZ, and that China’s activities in those waters violated the rights of the Philippines under international law.

Beijing rejected the ruling and has continued its maritime activities. Goitia is unequivocal about what this means for the Philippines. “It is not enough to win a ruling. A nation must defend itself with unity, discipline, and moral courage,” he said. The ruling is a legal foundation, but legal victories must be sustained through political will, public awareness, and consistent diplomatic action.

Vigilance as a Civic Duty

Goitia extends his analysis beyond the formal instruments of the state. He argues that vigilance is a civic responsibility, not only a military or diplomatic one. When narratives emerge that reframe Chinese conduct as benign or frame Philippine claims as negotiable, Goitia warns that public discourse becomes a battleground.

“When a nation begins to speak timidly about its own rights, it sends a signal. And signals matter,” he said in a March 2026 statement. Goitia calls on journalists, educators, and civic leaders to resist the normalization of doubt, because sustained ambiguity in domestic discourse can gradually weaken the Philippines’ international standing as much as any maritime incident.

The Road Ahead

Goitia does not advocate confrontation. He advocates clarity. The Philippines, in his view, must continue combining legal affirmation, strengthened alliances, and consistent diplomatic protest. It must speak clearly about its rights without apology and without provocation. That combination of firmness and restraint, grounded in the rule of law, is the only posture that preserves national dignity while avoiding escalation.

The next article in this series examines the specific gray zone tactics China deploys and why they are so difficult to counter through conventional means.