The Philippines has lodged a sharp diplomatic protest against China Daily over an artificially-generated video that portrayed Filipinos as primates dressed in traditional clothing, marking an escalation in rhetoric between Manila and Beijing at a particularly fraught moment in their maritime disputes. The video, posted to the state-run Chinese media outlet's Facebook account on July 10, depicted a monkey in Filipino attire being manipulated by arms representing the United States and Japan, before being verbally abused, discarded into the ocean, and blasted with water cannon fire. Philippine officials characterised the content as dehumanising propaganda designed to mock their nation, and the foreign ministry issued a formal statement declaring that the imagery is "deeply offensive, distressing, and unacceptable."
Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro delivered a particularly blistering response to the episode, describing the material as "contemptible propaganda" that represents "a disgrace to any State that claims to exercise responsible regional leadership." Teodoro's remarks went beyond simple condemnation to analyse what he saw as deeper institutional dysfunction in Beijing's approach to regional diplomacy. He argued that the resort to dehumanising imagery and racial mockery revealed a government that has fundamentally failed to advance its territorial claims through legitimate channels. "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" is precisely what this incident exposed, Teodoro stated in comments issued late Thursday.
The video's specific narrative carries particular symbolic weight for the Philippines, as it appears designed to ridicule Manila's adherence to the 2016 arbitral award, a landmark legal ruling that invalidated China's expansive territorial claims across the South China Sea. In the video, the monkey is directed to pull a sheet of paper bearing the words "South China Sea arbitration award" before being thrown into the sea, effectively dramatising Beijing's rejection of the international court's decision. Teodoro pointed directly to this element, arguing that the video's "mockery of the lawful 2016 Arbitral Award and the video's glorification of violence against the Filipino people and soldiers expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of China's propaganda machine."
The timing of China Daily's release is unlikely to be coincidental. The video appeared on July 10, precisely when the Philippines was commemorating the tenth anniversary of the arbitral award, a date that carries enormous political and symbolic significance for Manila. The award represented a major diplomatic victory for the Philippines under the previous Aquino administration and remains central to the country's legal justification for its territorial position in the South China Sea. By releasing inflammatory content on this anniversary, Beijing appears to have deliberately chosen a moment when such a gesture would generate maximum impact and provoke the strongest possible response from the Philippine government.
The Chinese Embassy in Manila has not yet provided any official response to requests for comment regarding the video or the Philippine government's demands for its removal. This silence itself speaks volumes about the nature of the incident—whether it reflects awareness at the diplomatic level that the content has caused damage, or simply represents standard procedure in a relationship that has become increasingly fraught with public confrontations. What remains clear is that the Philippine foreign ministry has drawn what it explicitly calls a "firm line" against this category of content, signalling that further similar acts could trigger even more severe diplomatic consequences.
This latest incident must be understood against the backdrop of deteriorating relations between the two nations across multiple dimensions. The South China Sea has become a consistent flashpoint, with Chinese vessels repeatedly engaging in aggressive manoeuvres against Philippine boats, particularly around contested areas. The installation of a floating barrier by China at the entrance to Scarborough Shoal—itself a symbol of China's assertive posture—sparked immediate protests from Manila and became another sore point in the relationship. Beyond maritime matters, Beijing has imposed direct sanctions on Philippine officials including Teodoro himself, weaponising diplomatic tools to signal displeasure with Manila's alignment with the United States and Japan.
Teodoro's language in his response went well beyond typical diplomatic protest, with him characterising recent Chinese behaviour as "schizophrenic" and arguing that it reveals a nation that is neither secure nor confident. By describing China as an untrustworthy neighbour, he articulated a fundamental challenge to Beijing's self-presentation as a responsible regional power. The use of such stark terminology suggests that Manila believes the time for measured, behind-the-scenes diplomacy may be passing, and that public messaging about the nature of Chinese intentions has become essential to shaping both domestic and international opinion.
For Southeast Asian observers, this incident illuminates broader concerns about how great powers conduct themselves in the digital age. The use of artificial intelligence to generate dehumanising propaganda represents a particularly modern form of information warfare, one that occupies a grey zone between official state policy and deniable content. While China Daily is unambiguously a state-run entity, the AI-generated nature of the video might theoretically provide Beijing with some plausible deniability—though the Philippine government has made clear it sees through such pretences. The incident raises uncomfortable questions about what standards of acceptable discourse should govern state media operations in the region, and whether international norms around human dignity and respect are adequate for the AI era.
For Malaysia and other ASEAN nations observing this escalation, the implications are significant. The Philippines' strong stance against dehumanising propaganda sets a precedent for how member states should respond to similar provocations. Yet it also underscores the challenge that regional solidarity faces when individual countries pursue bilateral relationships with major powers that may not align with ASEAN consensus positions. Malaysia, which has its own South China Sea disputes with China, may view the Philippines' firm response as either a template for its own approach or as a cautionary tale about the costs of public confrontation, depending on how the incident ultimately plays out diplomatically.
The Philippine government's demand for removal of the video represents the bare minimum response to such content, but the deeper question concerns what mechanisms exist to hold state media actors accountable for spreading dehumanising propaganda. International pressure may ultimately prove more effective than formal diplomatic channels in persuading platforms like Facebook to consider whether allowing state actors to disseminate such content aligns with their stated community standards. Whether China Daily will comply with the removal demand, and whether such compliance would be followed by any acknowledgment of wrongdoing or apology, remains to be seen. What is certain is that this episode has added another layer of toxicity to an already strained bilateral relationship, and has demonstrated the capacity of digital media to dramatically escalate diplomatic tensions in an instant.
