The reply matches the provocation: A clear warning to Manila

On the morning of July 20, Chinese coast guard patrol vessels were conducting routine law-enforcement duties in the waters adjacent to Ren'ai Reef, which is part of China's Nansha Islands.

The Philippine vessel illegally grounded at the reef — commonly referred to as BRP Sierra Madre — dispatched two rubber boats. Disregarding repeated and explicit warnings from the Chinese side, these boats approached at high speed in a hazardous manner, and attempted to ram and encircle the Chinese patrol vessel. Their personnel were the first to launch physical attacks, striking Chinese law-enforcement officers with paddles and long sticks.

China responded in accordance with the law: through verbal warnings, evasive maneuvers and countermeasures aimed at stabilizing the situation while exercising the greatest possible restraint.

Video footage released through Chinese maritime monitoring channels and media outlets clearly records the sequence of events. It shows the Philippine rubber boats initiating the dangerous approach and the physical confrontation. Manila's subsequent claims — that Chinese personnel struck a Filipino sailor with a baton and that the Philippine sailors acted only in self-defense — amount to a deliberate reversal of the facts. Such distortion serves only to confuse the public record and deflect responsibility for the provocation.

This episode fits a recurring pattern. It unfolded against the backdrop of Manila's renewed emphasis on the illegal and invalid 2016 arbitral award, the promotion of which has become a regular feature of Philippine diplomacy. More immediately, the incident unfolded just as foreign ministers from ASEAN member states and dialogue partners, including China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi, were set to gather in Manila for a series of high-level meetings. The timing is unlikely to be coincidental.

Manila appears to be pursuing several interconnected objectives.

To begin with, actions at sea are meant to reinforce the Philippines' public campaign centered on the 2016 arbitral proceedings. By generating fresh incidents, certain Philippine actors seek to sustain momentum for a ruling that China has consistently rejected as lacking both legal foundation and jurisdiction. Friction on the water supplies concrete imagery to accompany diplomatic and media efforts.

Closely related is the timing: the provocation coincides with the ASEAN foreign ministers' meetings hosted by the Philippines. By creating friction at a sensitive moment, Manila can attempt to steer attention toward the South China Sea issue, inject bilateral tensions into a multilateral setting, and complicate the atmosphere for constructive China-ASEAN dialogue. Such maneuvers risk undermining the broader regional consensus on managing differences peacefully through the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

It is also worth noting that Philippine policy on the South China Sea is far from monolithic. Different agencies and branches of government pursue approaches that are not always aligned. The armed forces have frequently adopted a more assertive posture, sometimes acting with limited coordination with the foreign ministry. Under the pressure of major diplomatic events, military elements appear willing to generate incidents that provide material for publicity and reinforce a hardline domestic narrative, even when this diverges from the diplomatic track.

External encouragement has also played a role. Statements issued in early July by the United States, Japan and certain other countries — reaffirming support for the arbitral award and criticizing China's positions — appear to have been interpreted in Manila as a green light. Combined with domestic nationalist sentiment stirred by the recent promotion of the award, this external signaling seems to have emboldened some actors. The tactic resembles a familiar "bitter meat" approach: stage a confrontation, invite a response and then publicize the consequences to portray the Philippines as the injured party. This formula has been employed before and continues to serve short-term political purposes at home and abroad.

Domestic political considerations are another significant driver. President Marcos Jr.'s approval and trust ratings have remained under pressure amid economic challenges, inflation concerns, and intensifying political competition. Recent surveys, including those from Pulse Asia and Social Weather Stations, reflect relatively low levels of public satisfaction with the administration's overall performance. In such circumstances, maritime incidents can be used to mobilize nationalist sentiment, shift public focus outward, and mask shortcomings in domestic governance. By framing external disputes as central to national identity, the government seeks to consolidate support and divert attention from internal difficulties.

Finally, Manila harbors evident anxiety about the durability of its security relationship with the United States at a time when China and the US are managing differences and working toward more stable and constructive bilateral ties. Philippine policymakers appear concerned that a reduction in US focus on the South China Sea could leave Manila more exposed. By sustaining tension at sea, certain elements calculate that they can keep Washington engaged, reinforce alliance commitments, and make any perceived US disengagement politically costly. This approach treats regional stability as secondary to locking in external backing.

China's position on Ren'ai Reef has remained consistent and is firmly grounded in history, geography, and international law. The reef forms part of China's Nansha Islands, over which China exercises indisputable sovereignty. Chinese coast guard forces will continue to conduct rights-protection and law-enforcement activities in the relevant waters as a sovereign right and responsibility.

At the same time, China has demonstrated repeated restraint in its handling of such incidents. It has consistently called on the Philippines to cease infringement and provocation, to stop distorting facts for propaganda purposes, and to return to managing differences through dialogue and consultation in accordance with the spirit of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. Escalatory actions of this kind do not advance Manila's long-term interests. They heighten risks, erode mutual trust, and complicate efforts to maintain peace and stability in the region.

Responsible management of maritime differences requires factual accuracy, strategic restraint, and a willingness to engage directly rather than through staged confrontations designed primarily for external audiences. The events of July 20 illustrate how far certain Philippine actors remain from adopting such an approach. Beijing will continue to safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights while remaining open to dialogue that serves the common interest of regional peace and development.

China's approach has been consistent over time. When Philippine personnel employed paddles and similar implements during provocations at Ren'ai Reef in 2024, they encountered firm and proportionate countermeasures from the Chinese side. The same principle applies now.

Should Manila choose to escalate by resorting to firearms, it would face an equally resolute response. Defending sovereignty follows a clear logic: the nature of the challenge determines the nature of the reply.

The author is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.