The recently concluded ASEAN Summit underscored the urgency of finalizing the long-delayed Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. As Prof. Rommel Banlaoi pointed out, negotiations are being fast-tracked, with a working draft already on the table. The intent is clear: calm tensions, build confidence, and prevent escalation in one of the world’s most contested maritime zones. This is diplomacy at work — a path toward peace and stability that ASEAN leaders, including the Philippines, claim to champion.

Yet, even as our diplomats talk peace, our generals rehearse war. The simultaneous conduct of the Balikatan exercises — this year involving 17,000 troops and unprecedented participation from Japan — sends a jarring counter-message. While the ASEAN Summit projects the Philippines as a peace-builder, Balikatan projects us as a frontline partner in militarization.

Prof. Banlaoi calls this “strategic ambiguities”: a dual-track policy that risks undermining our credibility. Are we truly committed to diplomacy, or are we preparing for confrontation?

China’s reaction is telling. While ASEAN negotiates confidence-building measures, Beijing questions our sincerity, pointing to missile drills and joint exercises as proof of duplicity. Prof. Banlaoi warns that such inconsistencies cast doubt on our strategic objectives. Official statements insist these exercises target no country, but “if you read between the lines,” he says, “it’s obvious which country that is.” The mixed signals are not lost on our neighbors — nor on ordinary Filipinos who ask: what war are we preparing for, and why?

The Philippines has played commendable roles as mediator — helping de-escalate the Thai-Cambodian border conflict, acting as special envoy on Myanmar, and pushing for peaceful settlement in the South China Sea. These are the hallmarks of a responsible state. But juxtaposed against missile launches from Tacloban to Central Luzon, the message becomes muddled. As Prof. Banlaoi cautions, military exercises should prepare us for disaster response, maritime safety, and transnational crime — not for “dress rehearsals” of future wars.

The contradiction extends inward. Our bureaucracy is split: one arm pursues development diplomacy, another prepares for war. This division mirrors our unresolved internal conflicts. On insurgency, Prof. Banlaoi stresses that peace talks remain indispensable. Ending rebellion is not merely about defeating rebels but about achieving social justice — addressing the roots of armed struggle. Without dialogue, insurgency will never truly end.

The Philippines today stands at a crossroads. We can either embrace diplomacy as our defining role in Asia or allow militarization to dictate our trajectory. Strategic ambiguity may buy us time, but it also erodes trust. As Prof. Banlaoi reminds us, “war is always destructive.” If no country intends to invade us, then our true battle is not for missiles or war games — it is for ‘palabigasan,’ for the dignity of Juan dela Cruz at the dinner table.