The Philippines has launched a sharp diplomatic protest against China Daily over a deeply offensive artificial intelligence-generated video that portrayed Filipinos in dehumanising terms, marking an escalation in rhetoric amid already fraught relations between Manila and Beijing. The government responded swiftly and decisively, labelling the content as racist propaganda that crossed a fundamental line of human dignity. This incident has thrust a spotlight on the deteriorating bilateral relationship and raises questions about the nature of Beijing's messaging strategy in the region.
The offending video, uploaded to China Daily's Facebook account on July 10, contained inflammatory and contemptuous imagery that the Philippine government found wholly unacceptable. The footage depicted a monkey dressed in traditional Filipino clothing, manipulated by arms representing the United States and Japan, being coerced into singing specific material. The satirical narrative escalated from mockery to violence, with the creature being called derogatory names, shown holding lyrics referencing the 2016 Arbitral Award regarding the South China Sea, and ultimately being thrown into the water before being hit with a vessel's water cannon. Such visual messaging crossed from political commentary into what Manila characterised as deliberate dehumanisation.
Manila's response was unambiguous, with the foreign ministry stating that it drew "a firm line at the depiction of Filipinos as monkeys," describing the material as "deeply offensive, distressing, and unacceptable." The government demanded the immediate removal of the video from the social media platform. When approached for comment, the Chinese Embassy in Manila offered no public statement, leaving the diplomatic complaint hanging without official acknowledgement or clarification of Beijing's intent.
Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro delivered a particularly scathing assessment, describing the video as "contemptible propaganda" that represented a disgrace to any nation claiming responsible regional leadership. His statement went further, using the incident to cast light on what he characterised as fundamental weaknesses in China's geopolitical position. He argued that resorting to racist imagery and manufactured hatred demonstrated that Beijing had "utterly failed to defend its ridiculous claims through reason, evidence, or law." This framing positioned the video not merely as an insult but as evidence of Beijing's inability to win arguments through legitimate means.
Tedoro's critique extended to the substance of what the video sought to mock: the 2016 Arbitral Award issued under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which invalidated China's expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. He contended that the video's glorification of violence against Filipino civilians and military personnel, combined with its mockery of the arbitral ruling, exposed "the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of China's propaganda machine." By framing the incident this way, he positioned the Philippines as defending international law while suggesting that China's approach to regional diplomacy had become increasingly desperate and irrational.
The timing of the video's release proved particularly significant, coinciding with Philippine commemorations marking a decade since the landmark 2016 arbitral ruling. That decision represented a major diplomatic victory for Manila and its international supporters, invalidating Beijing's nine-dash line claim that would have encompassed approximately 90 per cent of the South China Sea. China has consistently rejected the arbitral outcome, maintaining its own expansive interpretation of its maritime rights. The July 10 release thus appeared deliberately calculated to undermine Manila's commemoration of this legal victory.
Tedoro's broader characterisation of recent Chinese behaviour as "schizophrenic" reflected Manila's growing frustration with what officials perceive as erratic and increasingly aggressive conduct from Beijing. He stressed that such dehumanising tactics revealed China to be "neither a secure and confident actor nor a trustworthy neighbour," suggesting that the conduct undermines Beijing's stated commitment to peaceful regional development and cooperative engagement with Southeast Asia.
The condemnation arrives against a backdrop of mounting bilateral tensions that extend well beyond rhetorical sparring. The Philippines has endured repeated confrontations with Chinese vessels at sea, including what Manila characterises as aggressive manoeuvres and dangerous encounters. Beijing has imposed targeted sanctions against Teodoro himself, personalising diplomatic disputes. Most recently, China installed a floating barrier at the entrance to Scarborough Shoal, a strategically important feature claimed by both nations, which the Philippines subsequently protested until its removal.
For Malaysian observers and Southeast Asian policymakers more broadly, this incident underscores deepening concerns about Beijing's diplomatic conduct and the trajectory of regional stability. The use of artificial intelligence technology to generate racist imagery represents a novel dimension of information warfare that transcends traditional state media messaging. It raises uncomfortable questions about whether other Southeast Asian nations might become targets of similar campaigns. The apparent willingness to employ dehumanising language and imagery suggests that Beijing views the regional order as increasingly competitive and adversarial rather than cooperative.
The broader implications for Southeast Asia suggest that managing relations with Beijing requires vigilance and willingness to respond firmly when diplomatic norms are violated. The Philippines' decision to publicly condemn the video and demand its removal establishes a precedent for how regional states might respond to similar provocations. It also reflects the reality that digital platforms have become vehicles for state propaganda in ways that previous generations of diplomats never anticipated.
Philippine officials have indicated they will not treat this as a minor transgression to be quietly shelved. Instead, the government is using the incident to highlight what it views as fundamental contradictions in China's regional strategy and its claims to seek peaceful development. Whether Beijing responds with clarification, apology, or continued silence will likely shape how this episode influences both bilateral relations and the broader Southeast Asian calculus regarding engagement with China.
