Paddling for pity: The Philippines' old script, new splashes

Editor's note: Ding Duo, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On July 21, 2026, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs urgently summoned the Philippine Ambassador to lodge a solemn protest over the Philippines' deliberate maritime provocation and direct assault on Chinese coast guard personnel at Ren'ai Reef. The move came after Philippine forces from the illegally grounded vessel at the reef launched an unprovoked attack during a routine Chinese law-enforcement patrol.

According to verified footage and on-site records, two rubber boats deployed from the Philippine vessel sped toward Chinese coast guard ships at high speed, ignoring repeated warnings. The boats attempted to ram and encircle the Chinese vessels, after which Philippine personnel initiated physical violence by striking Chinese officers with paddles and long sticks. China responded strictly in accordance with the law – using verbal warnings, evasive maneuvers, and proportionate countermeasures – while exercising maximum restraint to prevent escalation. The visual evidence clearly shows the Philippine side as the aggressor that first resorted to force. Manila's subsequent narrative, which reverses the sequence and claims self-defense, is a transparent attempt to distort facts and shift blame.

In the immediate aftermath, China extended humanitarian consideration by allowing the Philippine side to transfer injured personnel from the grounded vessel to its coast guard ship via small boats. Chinese coast guard vessels maintained close monitoring, conducted verification inquiries, and oversaw the entire transfer process to ensure safety and order. Even as this humanitarian gesture was being carried out, it was already clear that the episode formed part of a larger pattern.

This incident did not occur in isolation. It took place as China's Foreign Minister prepared to travel to Manila for the China-ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting, with the Philippines serving as the rotating chair. A possible bilateral meeting between the two foreign ministers was also on the horizon. While China-Philippines diplomatic channels have remained open and the maritime consultation mechanism continues to operate, a recurring pattern has emerged: Whenever prospects for communication appear, or major regional diplomatic events approach, certain forces in the Philippines choose to manufacture friction at sea in an effort to disrupt the atmosphere.

In the face of this pattern, China's position has remained steady and clear. Provocation is met with firm countermeasures; dialogue, when pursued sincerely, is always welcomed. Constructive engagement itself serves as a restraining influence on domestic hardline elements in the Philippines who seek to derail bilateral relations.

The latest incident at Ren'ai Reef fits neatly into this familiar script. By staging fresh confrontations, certain Philippine actors aim to breathe life into the repeatedly rejected 2016 arbitral award and supply dramatic imagery for their diplomatic and media campaigns. The timing – just before high-level ASEAN gatherings hosted by Manila – appears calculated to push the South China Sea issue to the forefront, inject bilateral tensions into a multilateral setting, and complicate efforts at constructive China-ASEAN cooperation. Such moves risk undermining the regional consensus on managing differences peacefully through the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

Behind this script lies the fragmented nature of Philippine decision-making on maritime issues. Different agencies and branches often pursue divergent lines, with military elements frequently adopting a more assertive posture that is not always coordinated with the foreign ministry. Ahead of important diplomatic occasions, these elements appear willing to generate incidents that provide material for domestic publicity and reinforce a confrontational narrative.

External signals have also played a part. Recent statements from the United States, Japan, and others reaffirming support for the arbitral award have been interpreted in some Philippine circles as tacit encouragement. Combined with domestic nationalist sentiment, this has emboldened certain actors to pursue a "provoke-then-complain" approach: Create a clash, invite a response, and then publicize the consequences to portray the Philippines as the injured party.

Domestic political pressures further complicate the picture. Faced with economic challenges and fluctuating public support, some elements in Manila view maritime incidents as a convenient way to rally nationalist sentiment, shift attention outward, and mask internal governance difficulties. At the same time, there is evident anxiety in certain Philippine circles about the durability of security ties with the United States, especially as China and the United States manage their differences and move toward greater stability. Sustaining tension at sea is seen by some as a way to keep Washington engaged and raise the political cost of any perceived US disengagement. None of these calculations, however, alter the fundamental reality of China's sovereignty.

China's sovereignty over Ren'ai Reef, part of the Nansha Islands, is firmly grounded in history, geography, and international law. Chinese coast guard forces will continue to carry out rights-protection and law-enforcement duties in the relevant waters as a sovereign right and responsibility. At the same time, China has consistently demonstrated restraint. It urges the Philippines to cease infringement and provocation, stop distorting facts for propaganda purposes, and return to managing differences through dialogue and consultation in the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. Escalatory actions of this kind do not serve Manila's long-term interests; they heighten risks, erode trust, and undermine regional peace and stability.

Responsible handling of maritime differences requires factual accuracy, strategic restraint, and a willingness to engage directly rather than through staged confrontations aimed primarily at external audiences. The events surrounding July 21 once again demonstrate how far certain Philippine actors remain from embracing such an approach. Beijing will continue to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights while remaining open to dialogue that genuinely serves the common interest of regional peace and development.

The principle is straightforward and consistent: The nature and intensity of the challenge determine the nature and intensity of the response. Past incidents have shown that when Philippine personnel resorted to paddles and similar implements, they encountered firm and proportionate countermeasures. Should Manila choose to escalate further – for example, by introducing firearms – the response would be equally resolute.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)