I. Escalating Rhetoric: Manila Rejects Beijing’s Demands

The diplomatic and military tension over the West Philippine Sea (WPS) has escalated into a fierce war of words, with the Philippines delivering a scathing rebuke to China’s latest round of accusations. On Saturday, the Department of National Defense (DND) directly addressed Beijing’s call for Manila to “cease infringement, provocation and propaganda,” dismissing the statements as a clear case of “projection.”

DND Spokesperson Assistant Secretary Arsenio Andolong firmly stated that the Philippines would not succumb to what it perceives as blackmail and stressed that it is, in fact, China’s unilateral actions that constitute the real threat to regional stability and the rules-based international order.

“Their words do not reflect the reality in the West Philippine Sea and the broader South China Sea. Their lies range from mislabeling legitimate actions to inventing ‘history,’” Andolong declared in a powerful statement that discarded the carefully curated diplomatic language often used in international disputes.

II. Turning the Tables: A Strategy of Mirroring Language

The core of the DND’s counter-argument lies in directly mirroring and reframing China’s own vocabulary, turning Beijing’s accusations back upon itself. Andolong intentionally twisted a key phrase used by the Chinese Ministry of National Defense (MND) to highlight the perceived hypocrisy.

China’s MND spokesperson, Senior Colonel Jiang Bin, had warned that China “will neither tolerate the blackmail by those who provoke first and then play the victim.” Andolong seized on this, stating:

“We shall use China’s own words and make them more believable: ‘The Philippines will not tolerate the blackmailing by those who provoke first and then play the victim.’ This is precisely what the Philippines is doing in reaction to China’s actions.”

This deliberate rhetorical strategy serves to paint Manila as the reactive party, simply defending its sovereign rights, while positioning Beijing as the provocateur attempting to intimidate a smaller nation through coercive language and actions.

III. The Source of Tension: Foreign Alliances and Mutual Accusations

The recent flare-up was ignited by China’s assertion on Friday that the Philippines is the primary driver of regional instability. Senior Colonel Jiang Bin specifically accused Manila of escalating tensions by “drawing in outside forces” into the West Philippine Sea, referencing the increasing frequency of joint military exercises with defense partners like the United States and Australia.

Jiang argued that defense cooperation among countries “should neither target nor harm the interests of any third party, nor undermine regional peace and stability.” He claimed that the “root cause” of the current situation is the Philippines’ alleged provocations alongside its foreign partners.

Manila views this external defense cooperation—which has been publicly endorsed by envoys as “crucial to deter aggression”—as a legitimate exercise of its sovereign right to self-defense and a necessary measure to counter China’s increasingly aggressive maritime maneuvers. The DND’s pushback highlights the central strategic disagreement: China sees these alliances as destabilizing interference, while the Philippines sees them as vital deterrents against what it calls Beijing’s expansionist policies.

IV. A Rejection of Xi Jinping’s Philosophy

The DND spokesperson did not hesitate to wade into philosophical territory, taking aim at Chinese President Xi Jinping’s previous call for nations to “resist unilateral bullying, oppose protectionism, and prevent the world from returning to the law of the jungle.”

Andolong’s retort was pointed and culturally specific, designed to underscore the perceived barbarity of China’s actions versus the Philippines’ adherence to law:

“In the Southeast Asian jungles, our indigenous peoples—whose heritage and customs we protect—are more law-abiding than China.”

This analogy suggests that China’s current conduct in the South China Sea—characterized by numerous documented incidents of harassment, dangerous maneuvers, and use of water cannons—is inherently lawless and uncivilized, directly contradicting the humanitarian and cooperative ethos espoused by its own leader.

V. The Legal and Historical Standoff

The deep-seated nature of the dispute rests on incompatible legal and historical claims. China continues to reiterate its sweeping claims over almost the entire South China Sea, a vital global trade route, based on what it refers to as “historical context.” This claim directly overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague delivered a definitive ruling in favor of the Philippines, declaring that China’s expansive claims, including the “nine-dash line,” had “no legal basis” under international law. China has refused to recognize or abide by this landmark ruling.

The Philippines, by contrast, continually anchors its actions and diplomatic language to this 2016 ruling and the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The DND affirmed this commitment, stating:

“The Philippines will remain undeterred in asserting its national interests in the West Philippine Sea and in upholding international law and the rules-based international order.”

VI. Unwavering Resolve and a Warning of Consequences

Jiang Bin ended his statement with a clear, albeit veiled, threat toward Manila: “We urge the Philippine side to stop undermining joint efforts by regional countries in pursuing peace and development, and cease its infringement, provocation and propaganda. Otherwise, the higher it jumps, the harder it will fall.”

This language is interpreted by defense analysts as a veiled threat of escalation. However, the DND’s unyielding stance demonstrates that Manila has calculated the risks and is determined to press forward with its strategy of transparency and internationalization of the conflict. The DND is essentially calling China’s bluff, refusing to be intimidated into silence or submission.

While the tension continues to rise, it is notable that both sides remain engaged in discussions, suggesting that the PH-China tension is not yet seen as an issue that would completely derail the finalization of the South China Sea Code of Conduct—a diplomatic process that regional players hope will eventually provide a framework for stability and conflict management.

The conflict remains a battle of narratives, but for the Philippines, it is a fight for territorial integrity and the sanctity of international law against what it unequivocally calls unilateral bullying.