Photo from Kishore Mahbubani’s website.
Rommel C. Banlaoi | October 12, 2026
Speaking before a packed audience at Ateneo de Manila University on October 2, 2026, Kishore Mahbubani delivered a message that deserves attention far beyond the university campus. As Philippine security policy becomes increasingly shaped by the strategic rivalry between the United States and China, Manila should listen carefully to his call for strategic autonomy, geopolitical realism, and independent statecraft.
Throughout his diplomatic and academic career, Mahbubani has advanced a consistent proposition that small and medium-sized states preserve their sovereignty not by becoming instruments of great powers but by maintaining the widest possible room for independent action. For ASEAN members, this means resisting pressure to choose sides and ensuring that national interests remain the principal guide of policy.
This message is especially relevant today because the world is undergoing what Mahbubani calls as a historic great-power transition. The post-Cold War era of overwhelming American primacy is giving way to a more contested international order marked by China’s rise and the relative diffusion of power. Such transitions have historically been periods of instability, uncertainty, and strategic danger. The intensifying China-US rivalry is not merely a competition between two states. It is a struggle over the future balance of power in the international system.
For countries like the Philippines, these are dangerous times Mahbubani argues. The greatest risk is not simply external pressure from competing powers. It is the erosion of strategic autonomy. When a country’s options become overly dependent on the preferences of larger states, its freedom of action narrows and its vulnerability increases.
The Philippines faces legitimate security concerns. Chinese activities in the South China Sea continue to challenge Philippine maritime interests. The Armed Forces of the Philippines must continue military modernization, and the alliance with the United States remains an important pillar of national defense.
Yet national security cannot be reduced to military cooperation alone. Security also requires diplomacy, economic resilience, political cohesion, and strategic flexibility. This is precisely where Mahbubani’s message deserves attention.
For decades, ASEAN has sought to engage all major powers while avoiding excessive dependence on any one of them. This approach has helped preserve regional stability and provided Southeast Asian states with valuable diplomatic space. It has not eliminated disputes, but it has prevented the region from becoming permanently divided into opposing camps. (Also read: Building Bridges Not Walls: The Philippines and the Future of Maritime Order in the Asia-Pacific)
Mahbubani argues that this remains the wisest course. Avoiding sides does not mean abandoning principles. It means preserving flexibility. It means ensuring that policy decisions are driven primarily by national interests rather than the strategic agendas of others.
For Manila, this argument should resonate. Military preparedness and deterrence are essential. But diplomacy and defense are complementary instruments of statecraft, not competing alternatives.
Listening to Mahbubani does not mean weakening the alliance with the United States. Nor does it mean accommodating actions that undermine Philippine interests. It means recognizing a fundamental reality: alliances are instruments of policy, not substitutes for policy.
Mahbubani also cautions against placing excessive confidence in international law as a sufficient guarantee of security. The Philippines should continue to defend the 2016 Arbitral Award and uphold a rules-based international order. International law remains a valuable source of legitimacy and diplomatic leverage.
At the same time, history reminds us that major powers often apply international law selectively. States invoke legal principles when those principles align with their interests and interpret them differently when they do not. Thus, Mahbubani contends that law alone is rarely enough. Diplomatic influence, economic resilience, military capability, and political will remain critical components of national power.
This is not an argument against international law. It is an argument against strategic complacency. His broader point is that power remains a defining feature of international relations. Nations speak the language of principles and norms, but they also pursue interests. Effective statecraft requires a clear understanding of both realities. Countries that rely exclusively on legal and moral arguments while neglecting the realities of power risk finding themselves strategically exposed.
The challenge facing the Philippines is not whether it will be affected by the China-US strategic contest. Geography ensures that it will. Located at the center of one of the world’s most consequential maritime regions, the Philippines sits on the frontlines of a major geopolitical transformation.
History offers a cautionary lesson. During periods of great-power transition, smaller states have often borne the highest costs. Across regions and eras, rivalries among major powers have frequently evolved into proxy conflicts in which weaker states became battlegrounds for contests not entirely of their own making. The circumstances vary, but the pattern is familiar.
The lesson is not to abandon alliances but to ensure that national interests never become subordinate to the objectives of external actors. Strategic partnerships should enhance sovereignty, not diminish it. They should expand policy options, not narrow them.
This is why Mahbubani deserves a hearing in Manila. The Philippines should strengthen its defenses, deepen its diplomacy, protect its maritime rights, and maintain productive alliances. But it should also preserve its capacity for independent judgment.
The challenge extends beyond military modernization. It is to ensure that the Philippines remains sovereign not only in territory but also in strategic decision-making. Military strength matters. Alliances matter. But the ultimate objective is national autonomy.
Mahbubani offers no ready-made solutions. What he offers is something more valuable: a reminder that even amid an intensifying China-US great-power contest, smaller states still possess independence. They are not condemned to become pawns or proxies in a geopolitical struggle between a rising power and an established power. They retain choices and can pursue their own interests.
Mahbubani warns that countries that lose the ability to think independently eventually lose the ability to act independently. In an era defined by great-power transition and dangerous strategic competition between China and the United States, Manila would do well to listen.
Rommel C. Banlaoi, PhD, is Director of PhilippinesChina Studies Center at Diliman College and President of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies. He also served as President of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies.