The Philippines has launched a scathing condemnation of China Daily, the official state media outlet, over an artificially-generated video posted to the organisation's Facebook page that portrays Filipinos as primates engaging in crude mockery. Manila's response, delivered through both its Defence Secretary and Foreign Ministry, represents an unusually forceful diplomatic rebuke centred on what officials characterise as dehumanising racist propaganda rather than conventional policy disputes.
The controversial video, uploaded on July 10, featured an animated monkey dressed in traditional Filipino clothing being manipulated by disembodied arms representing the United States and Japan. The creature was instructed to sing while holding lyrics referencing the South China Sea arbitration award, a landmark 2016 ruling that invalidated sweeping Chinese territorial claims across the disputed waters. After being called "stupid," the monkey was depicted being hurled into the ocean before being blasted by a vessel's water cannon, an imagery analysts say carries violent overtones directed at the Filipino state and military.
Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro's statement went beyond standard diplomatic language, characterising the material as "contemptible propaganda" that represents "a disgrace to any State that claims to exercise responsible regional leadership." His words reflect deep frustration within Manila's security establishment at what it views as Beijing's resort to crude mockery rather than substantive engagement. Teodoro emphasised that the video's creation and distribution expose what he termed "the weakness of a government that resorts to racism, threats, and manufactured hatred because it has utterly failed to defend its ridiculous claims through reason, evidence, or law."
The timing of the video's release carries particular significance for bilateral relations. Its July 10 posting coincided with Philippine commemorative events marking the tenth anniversary of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling that fundamentally undermined China's expansive South China Sea territorial assertions. Beijing continues to reject the arbitral award and the legal framework underpinning it, maintaining what it characterises as historical and sovereignty-based rights to the disputed waters. The apparent coordination between the video's release and the anniversary events suggests a deliberate Chinese effort to undermine Philippine messaging during what Manila considers an important date in its diplomatic and legal calendar.
Teooro's critique expanded beyond the immediate incident to encompass what he described as "the recent spate of schizophrenic behaviour of the Chinese Communist Party." His characterisation of Chinese actions as erratic and irrational carries implications for broader regional security calculations. By describing Beijing as "neither a secure and confident actor nor a trustworthy neighbour," Teodoro signals to both domestic audiences and international observers that Manila views Chinese behaviour as increasingly unpredictable and unreliable, framing the dehumanising video as emblematic of deeper governance and conduct concerns rather than an isolated propaganda misstep.
The video's use of artificial intelligence technology introduces a modern dimension to traditional propaganda warfare. By employing AI generation rather than live-action production, China Daily potentially sought to create plausible deniability regarding the content's intent or to distance official responsibility. However, the strategy appears to have backfired, with Manila's Foreign Ministry issuing a formal statement emphasising that the depiction was "deeply offensive, distressing, and unacceptable," effectively drawing what officials termed "a firm line" against such dehumanising representations. The formal diplomatic language underscores that the Philippines views this not merely as offensive content but as a crossing of fundamental boundaries regarding how states represent other nations and peoples.
The Philippines' reaction reflects simmering tensions that extend far beyond this single incident. Bilateral relations have deteriorated significantly over the past months, characterised by escalating maritime confrontations, aggressive manoeuvres by Chinese vessels in disputed waters, and Beijing's imposition of targeted sanctions against Philippine officials including Teodoro himself. Most recently, the two nations clashed over a floating barrier that China installed at the entrance to Scarborough Shoal, one of the most contested features in the South China Sea. Although Beijing subsequently removed the barrier following Philippine objections, the incident reinforced perceptions in Manila of Chinese assertiveness and deliberate provocation.
The incident raises broader questions about escalating information warfare in the South China Sea dispute. As traditional diplomatic channels grow more strained and military confrontations increase, both Beijing and Manila appear increasingly willing to employ public communications—including crude propaganda—as instruments of political messaging. China Daily's video represents a notable escalation in tone and content from Beijing's usual state media output, which typically emphasises legal and historical arguments rather than racialised mockery. The shift suggests either changing strategic calculations within Beijing's propaganda apparatus or diminishing restraint regarding how aggressively to frame regional opponents.
For Southeast Asian observers, the incident carries cautionary implications regarding great power behaviour in the region. The Philippines' firmness in rejecting the video without immediate softening or diplomatic compromise suggests Manila may be adopting a more assertive stance in defending national dignity and international norms. This approach potentially influences how other Southeast Asian nations navigate their own relationships with Beijing, particularly those with South China Sea disputes. Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia, all of which maintain complex economic and security relationships with China alongside territorial or maritime concerns, will likely monitor how Beijing responds to Philippine demands and whether it shows willingness to walk back its propagandistic content.
The Chinese Embassy in Manila has not yet issued a substantive response to the controversy, maintaining silence despite Philippine demands for the video's removal and clarification regarding official state policy on such materials. This apparent reluctance to engage directly with the dispute may reflect internal Beijing deliberations about how to address the backlash without conceding ground on broader South China Sea positioning. The absence of immediate Chinese response also leaves open questions about whether Beijing considers the video's creation and distribution an official policy initiative or a discretionary choice by China Daily's editorial team.
Looking forward, the incident likely represents another data point in what appears to be a deteriorating trajectory in Philippines-China relations. The addition of propagandistic racism to an already fraught list of disputes—including military confrontations, economic coercion, and competing legal claims—suggests the bilateral relationship lacks sufficient diplomatic cushioning to absorb repeated shocks. For Manila, the video's content matters less than what its creation signals: that Beijing feels sufficiently unconstrained or confident to engage in crude mockery despite maintaining extensive economic and strategic ties with the Philippines. This calculation fundamentally affects how Philippine leadership assesses the reliability of diplomatic engagement with Beijing and whether military preparedness and alliance diversification represent more prudent strategic investments than continued dialogue efforts.
