Pragmatic Nationalism: A Philippine Foreign and Security Policy Framework
Populist rhetoric or rigid ideology alone is not enough to protect Philippines' sovereignty. International security expert Rommel Banlaoi writes that the Philippines also needs pragmatism.
Rommel C. Banlaoi | August 11, 2026
At the center of the intensifying U.S.–China rivalry, the Philippines finds itself in a precarious position. Every naval incident in the South China Sea, every diplomatic maneuver, and every headline seems to pressure Manila to choose sides.
Yet framing Philippine foreign policy as either “proChina” or “proU.S.” is misleading. Such a binary reduces our choices, undermines sovereignty, and constrains strategic flexibility. What the Philippines needs is a coherent framework anchored in national interest. I call this approach pragmatic nationalism.
Pragmatic nationalism begins with the principle that foreign policy must serve the Philippines first. Sovereignty, security, and development are the core interests. But nationalism alone, if expressed as populist rhetoric or rigid ideology, cannot sustain policy.
Pragmatism provides the method that is issue‑based cooperation, calibrated engagement, and hedging when necessary. Together, nationalism and pragmatism define a Philippine‑centered approach to external relations. (Also read: The Hawaii Calibration: Thailand Balances US-China powers amidst Gulf Tensions)
This framework matters because both extremes are dangerous. Alarmist securitization of China risks turning every interaction into confrontation, while uncritical accommodation risks eroding sovereignty.
Pragmatic nationalism rejects both. It recognizes that Washington and Beijing can be partners and risks depending on the domain. The United States remains vital for defense and deterrence, but automatic alignment with its strategic objectives could entrap us in conflicts not of our making. (Also read: Philippines,United States scale up trainings and exercises in 2027)
China offers economic opportunities, but engagement must be conditioned by transparency, reciprocity, and sovereignty safeguards.
Pragmatic nationalism insists that Manila chart its own course.
The South China Sea illustrates this approach. The 2016 arbitral award was a legal victory that strengthened our position, but legal triumph alone cannot secure our waters. Diplomacy remains essential.
Pragmatic nationalism demands that we defend our maritime rights while keeping channels open for dialogue and confidence‑building. Joint development schemes, if structured properly, can advance our economic interests without compromising sovereignty. The objective is not capitulation but calibrated engagement.
Defense policy is another area where pragmatic nationalism applies. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) provide deterrence, but they must be implemented with transparency and Philippine control. Alliances are important, but autonomy is essential. We must strengthen our own defense capabilities while ensuring that foreign military presence serves Philippine interests, not merely the strategic designs of others.
Economic development requires the same balance. China’s Belt and Road Initiative projects can help modernize our infrastructure, but they must be scrutinized to avoid debt dependency and loss of control.
Pragmatic nationalism welcomes investment, but only on terms that safeguard sovereignty. Diversification is key: Japan, the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other partners provide balance, reducing over‑reliance on any single power.
This framework also situates the Philippines within ASEAN’s diplomatic culture of consensus and centrality. Like other small states, we must navigate great‑power competition with flexibility and balance. Pragmatic nationalism aligns with this tradition, but grounds it firmly in Philippine priorities.
Critics may dismiss this as fence‑sitting. It is not.
Pragmatic nationalism is active, not passive. It requires constant calibration, tough decisions, and clear articulation of national interest. It is not about avoiding choices, but about making choices that serve the Philippines rather than external agendas.
Comparisons are useful. For example, Kishore Mahbubani is often labeled “pro‑China” because he critiques Western narratives and emphasizes Beijing’s rise. Bilahari Kausikan is known for his hard realist skepticism of China. (Also read: Mutual Respect Stabilizes Philippines–China Relations)
Pragmatic nationalism is distinctively pro-Filipino. It is neither China‑friendly nor U.S.‑dependent, but Philippines‑first. It insists on sovereignty as principle and pragmatism as method.
The stakes are high. As U.S.–China rivalry deepens, smaller states like the Philippines risk being reduced to pawns. Pragmatic nationalism offers a way forward. It calls for realism without fatalism, nationalism without populism, and pragmatism without opportunism. By grounding foreign policy in Philippine interests while remaining flexible in method, we can preserve strategic autonomy in the 21st century.
It is time to move beyond simplistic labels of “pro‑China” or “pro‑U.S.” and articulate a distinctly Philippine path. Pragmatic nationalism is a solid option. It is the framework we need to steer through the storm of great‑power rivalry, ensuring that our sovereignty, security, and development remain at the center of our foreign and security policy.
Rommel C. Banlaoi is President of the Philippine Society for International Security Studies.