The Battle Over Words

The Battle Over Words A few years ago, I received an invitation from a Malaysia-based organization to co-organize an academic dialogue on the disputed features in the South China Sea. As I reviewed their concept paper, one term immediately caught my attention and set off alarm bells: Ren’ai Jiao. This is the name China uses for Second Thomas Shoal, known to Filipinos as Ayungin Shoal, a maritime feature that lies within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone in the West Philippine Sea. At first glance, it appeared to be a simple matter of translation. But it was far more than that. Names are never merely labels; they carry history, meaning, and political intent. By uncritically adopting China’s nomenclature, the concept paper inadvertently echoed a sovereignty claim embedded in that language. That experience reminded me that geopolitical competition is no longer waged only through naval patrols, or diplomatic protests. It is also fought through language, scholarship, maps, media, and ideas. Before territories are contested at sea, they are first contested in our minds. The battle over sovereignty most often begins with the battle over words. The recent claims made by alleged Chinese academics over Batanes, together with the offensive depiction of Filipinos by a Chinese state media outlet, reinforce this reality. These are not isolated diplomatic irritants. They illustrate how strategic competition increasingly unfolds in the information domain, where history, narratives, and public perception become instruments of statecraft. Territorial claims are often preceded by efforts to shape historical memory, normalize preferred narratives, and influence how people understand sovereignty and national identity. When contested historical interpretations are repeatedly amplified through academic publications, media platforms, and digital networks, they can gradually blur the line between fact and fiction. Today’s narrative can become tomorrow’s accepted truth – and eventually serve as justification for future political or legal claims. This is why the warning against “manufactured history” should concern every Filipino. History is not simply about remembering the past; it is about preserving the integrity of the truth on which our national identity, sovereignty, and democratic institutions rest. When history is selectively rewritten to advance geopolitical objectives, whether on a geopolitical stage or within our own domestic borders, when institutions prioritize narrative management over raw truth, public trust erodes. The issue extends well beyond academic debate. It becomes a matter of national security. The greatest danger is not merely that falsehoods spread, but that citizens gradually lose confidence in evidence itself. Once facts become negotiable, democratic discourse becomes vulnerable to manipulation. These developments are part of what governments and international organizations now describe as Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). Unlike traditional propaganda, FIMI integrates state media, digital platforms, academic narratives, social media networks, and other channels to influence public opinion, weaken trust in democratic institutions, deepen social divisions, and shape another country’s strategic decisions. Its objective is rarely immediate persuasion. More often, it seeks to create confusion, amplify uncertainty, and slowly reshape what people consider credible or legitimate. In this environment, information becomes a strategic weapon, while public trust becomes a strategic asset. As the President prepares to deliver the State of the Nation Address, this is one issue that deserves far greater attention than it has traditionally received. National security can no longer be defined solely by the strength of our armed forces, or the alliances we maintain. It must also encompass the resilience of our information environment and our capacity to protect the integrity of the narratives that define us as a nation. The State of the Nation Address therefore presents an opportunity to articulate a broader vision of national resilience. Protecting the Philippines means defending not only our seas and borders but also the credibility of our institutions, the integrity of our scholarship, and the quality of our public discourse. Just as we invest in maritime defense and military modernization, we must also invest in strategic communications, historical research, cybersecurity, media and information literacy, and the institutions that safeguard democratic resilience. Achieving this vision requires a genuine whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Government agencies responsible for foreign affairs, national security, education, communications, and digital governance must work in concert. Universities must continue to uphold academic rigor and intellectual independence. Independent media and civil society must strengthen public understanding through evidence-based reporting and civic education. Schools must equip young Filipinos not only with digital skills but also with the critical thinking necessary to distinguish evidence from manipulation. Most importantly, democratic institutions must respond with transparency and credibility rather than censorship, demonstrating that the strength of a democracy lies in its confidence to confront falsehoods with facts. More than just military might, our resilience relies on our institutions having the courage to face hard truths with absolute transparency, owning up to internal lapses, and demonstrating that true leadership never shrinks from command responsibility Perhaps this is one of the most important messages the President can deliver in the State of the Nation Address. The future of the Philippines will not be secured by military strength alone. It will depend equally on our ability to defend the truth, strengthen democratic institutions, cultivate an informed and discerning citizenry, and preserve the integrity of the narratives that define us as a nation. In the twenty-first century, safeguarding sovereignty means protecting not only our territory, but also our history, our institutions, and the public trust that binds us together. ### About the Author: Dr. Jennifer Santiago Oreta is the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASOG). She is an expert in security governance and peacebuilding, having served as Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP).