[Inside the Newsroom] China’s envoy: Sounds like a threat, walks like a threat

• The Chinese embassy in Manila has increasingly issued aggressive statements towards Philippine officials, with Ambassador Jing Quan controversially suggesting that the Philippines should be grateful China has not used force in maritime disputes.
• The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs responded strongly to Jing's remarks, which President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. characterized as a threat, leading to expectations of a diplomatic summons.
• Amid rising tensions in the West Philippine Sea, Filipino military and diplomatic efforts are focused on defending national claims while managing relations with China, emphasizing the importance of international law and military preparedness.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

Since 2026, the Chinese embassy in Manila has made it normal to issue strong, sometimes incendiary, statements against Philippine agencies and officials, including the nationally-elected kind. It’s language that has teetered close to gutter-level, particularly when it’s the exchanges between its deputy spokesperson Guo Wei and Rear Admiral Jay Tarriela, who speaks for the Philippine Coast Guard on the West Philippine Sea. 

Yet it was still quite surprising — even if it was arguably expected — for Beijing’s top diplomat in the Philippines, Ambassador Jing Quan, to say the Philippines “should feel fortunate” that China doesn’t use force in its maritime disputes. If it did, the veteran diplomat said, “we may easily win.”

“But no, we will not choose to use force. We love peace,” he told reporters on October 15, on the sidelines of a forum. 

Jing went on to mention regions in the world — Gaza and Venezuela — where conflicts launched by Israel and the United States, respectively, have triggered instability in the region. The ambassador conveniently left out two other major conflicts in the world: the Israel and US war on Iran, and Russia’s war on Ukraine.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), in a rare strongly-worded but terse statement, chastised Jing for his remarks. 

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is expected to summon the Chinese envoy for the second time in less than a year over the same remarks, which he characterized as a “threat.”

The Chinese embassy has pushed back against the DFA through a statement and against Marcos through a vaguely-worded tweet (“Is this a threat?” to caption a longer clip of the chance interview with the media). 

In the five-minute interview, Jing goes on about the importance of dialogue in Asia, including within Southeast Asia, which is negotiating a South China Sea code with China. 

But the minutes preceding and succeeding that one line about the use of force doesn’t really take away from how out-of-pocket it was — to insist that Manila should be grateful that its superpower neighbor “loves” peace because, if it did not, it would handily win. 

Because the reality on the ground and at sea is that a “peace-loving” China can still inflict harm — economically and physically. Filipino personnel have been injured, to varying degrees, from the water cannons the China Coast Guard (CCG) uses to drive away maritime missions to key features in the West Philippine Sea. 

Literal blood has been shed by soldiers inadvertently injured during confrontations — a finger was severed in Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal in June 2024, and one soldier sustained a head injury just in July 2026. Earlier in October, the medical evacuation of a soldier with appendicitis took 10 hours because the CCG insisted on their way of doing things during the mission. 

Fisherfolk in Zambales, Palawan, and other fishing communities that have historically relied on the West Philippine Sea speak of dwindling catches or the lack of any opportunity to fish at all. 

During embeds in Navy warships on West Philippine Sea missions, I’ve come to almost expect the presence of a Chinese navy warship. I have to actively remind myself that while this has become the norm, it should not be accepted as such. 

Such is the “reset” that Marcos signalled and Filipino diplomats have aspired for since the beginning of 2026.

The information ecosystem when it comes to discussions on the West Philippine Sea and the disputes between the Philippines and China is, no doubt, full of noise — many of it the manufactured kind that’s designed to obfuscate from the facts on hand. 

Information and influence operations want to wear down the Filipino soldier and civilian’s spirit to wanting to defend what is the Filipinos’ by spotlighting Chinese narratives: that resistance is futile, or that it’s a binary choice between war and peace. 

I sometimes find myself having to discern whether a statement from either the embassy or a Philippine government official ought to be highlighted and amplified. He-said-he-said and tits-for-tats are easy and fun to draw out, sure. But they don’t always help readers make sense of what’s going on between the two countries in terms of maritime, political, or diplomatic issues. 

Recently, journalism students interviewed me for a school project. At one point, they asked me: How do you sift through the noise in diplomacy when, in some cases, either side has their own truth that they want amplified?

The answer can be simple, I told them. You go back to what international law, including the 2016 Arbitral Award, says. In reconstructing events that are not available for the public or even journalists to see, you talk to the widest range of sources, including those who could be adversarial to your personal beliefs.

You probe, you ask — and then you second-guess yourself. Rinse, repeat. 

In conversations with sources, there have been worries that, in all the noise, advocates and experts — even the most earnest ones — are in danger of losing the plot. 

The burden then falls onto the bureaucrats, the credentialed experts, and journalists who’ve done their homework to sift through propaganda, spin, and political noise, and stay laser-focused on key truths: that Manila must defend its entitlements and claims in the West Philippine Sea while also trying to keep okay ties with a sometimes-renegade Beijing.

For the military, that means keeping vigilant, especially with the 2028 presidential elections forthcoming, while still keeping itself free of partisan and electoral politicking. It means amping up its external defense posture, which, 15 years since the revised AFP modernization act, means focusing on logistics and supply chains. What good are new and shiny military toys when there’s little space to service them? 

We recently published a two-part report on the military’s modernization and defense self-reliance efforts. Because as we keep close track of both escalating rhetoric and confrontations in the West Philippine Sea, it’s important to keep an eye on how the Philippines’ maritime frontliners are preparing for any and all eventualities, including scenarios they would never wish on themselves. 

(If you want access to more exclusive content and briefings on security affairs, you can sign up to Rappler+, our membership program.)

– Rappler.com

Inside the Newsroom is a newsletter delivered straight to your inbox every week. Visit rappler.com/newsletters to manage your newsletter subscriptions.