The Philippines has launched a sharp diplomatic protest against China's state-controlled media outlet China Daily after it published an artificially generated video depicting Filipinos as primates dressed in traditional clothing. Manila characterised the imagery as deeply offensive and dehumanising, marking an escalation in rhetoric between the two nations already locked in disputes over competing territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Philippine government has demanded immediate removal of the content, which appeared on China Daily's Facebook account on July 10.
The controversial video employed artificial intelligence to create scenes showing a monkey garbed in Filipino attire being manipulated by hands representing the United States and Japan. The animated primate is directed to perform singing, subsequently insulted as "stupid," and then shown pulling a sheet containing text reading "South China Sea arbitration award" before being cast into the ocean and struck by water jets from a vessel. The symbolism was unmistakable: the video appeared designed to mock both the Philippines' reliance on its Western allies and the country's invocation of a 2016 international arbitral ruling that rejected China's expansive territorial claims.
Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro issued a withering statement condemning the material as contemptible propaganda that embarrasses any nation aspiring to demonstrate responsible regional leadership. He characterised the video as exposing governmental weakness, arguing that resort to racism, intimidation, and artificially cultivated hatred betrays the failure of authorities to substantiate their positions through legitimate channels of reason, evidence, or legal argument. Teodoro's language was notably severe, reflecting the depth of Manila's anger at what officials view as an unacceptable breach of diplomatic norms and basic respect for national dignity.
The Defence Secretary went further, suggesting that the video's treatment of the landmark 2016 Arbitral Award and its depiction of violence against Filipinos and military personnel demonstrated the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" of Beijing's propaganda apparatus. He described recent Chinese Communist Party conduct as exhibiting "schizophrenic behaviour," implying a government that oscillates between aggressive posturing and performative claims of regional trustworthiness. Teodoro's assessment positioned the video not as an isolated incident but as symptomatic of deeper institutional problems within China's governance structure.
The Philippine foreign ministry formally rejected the video as "deeply offensive, distressing, and unacceptable," drawing what officials described as a firm line against the dehumanisation of Filipinos. The statement emphasised that such representations crossed a threshold beyond normal diplomatic disagreement into territory that attacked the dignity of an entire nation. This framing reflects Manila's determination to mobilise international opinion and establish clear red lines regarding acceptable conduct in regional affairs, particularly as Southeast Asian nations increasingly scrutinise how major powers behave within their sphere.
Timestically, the video's release on July 10 coincided with Philippine commemorations marking the tenth anniversary of the 2016 arbitral award, a ruling by an international tribunal that effectively invalidated China's sweeping "nine-dash line" claims encompassing most of the South China Sea. Beijing has consistently rejected the tribunal's findings and continues to assert its historical rights to the disputed waters. The timing of China Daily's publication therefore appeared deliberately provocative, released at a moment when Philippine public attention was concentrated on celebrating the legal victory and reaffirming national commitment to the ruling's principles.
Relations between Manila and Beijing have deteriorated substantially over the past several years, punctuated by numerous confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels in contested waters. The two nations have clashed repeatedly over China's assertive behaviour, including aggressive manoeuvres by its coastguard and fishing militia, the imposition of economic sanctions against Philippine officials including Teodoro, and disputes over Chinese installations in disputed areas. Most recently, tensions spiked when China deployed a floating barrier at the entrance to Scarborough Shoal, a strategically significant feature claimed by the Philippines; Beijing removed the structure only after sustained Philippine protests.
The video incident must be understood against this broader backdrop of escalating tensions and deteriorating trust. For Philippine policymakers, the publication represents more than mere offensive content; it symbolises Beijing's apparent willingness to deploy dehumanising rhetoric and imagery against neighbouring populations in service of its regional ambitions. The use of artificial intelligence to generate such propaganda adds a contemporary dimension to the controversy, highlighting how emerging technologies can be weaponised for political purposes and raising questions about the adequacy of existing international norms and diplomatic practices in governing such conduct.
For Malaysia and other Southeast Asian nations observing these developments, the Philippines' forceful response carries significant implications. The incident demonstrates how territorial and maritime disputes can metastasise into broader conflicts involving propaganda, dignity, and fundamental questions about acceptable state behaviour. It also underscores the vulnerability of smaller regional powers when confronting technologically advanced authoritarian states willing to employ unconventional methods of coercion and intimidation. Malaysia, which maintains its own complex relationship with China and has competing claims in the South China Sea, will likely monitor how this dispute unfolds and whether international opinion supports the Philippines' position.
The Chinese Embassy in Manila has not immediately provided a formal response to the controversy, maintaining official silence even as the incident draws international attention and criticism. This reticence may reflect uncertainty about how to address the transgression or, alternatively, a calculated decision to avoid further amplifying the controversy through direct engagement. Regardless, the absence of a swift apology or acknowledgement suggests Beijing may intend to weather the diplomatic storm rather than substantively address Philippine grievances about the video's content and timing.
The broader implications of this episode extend beyond bilateral relations between Manila and Beijing. It raises fundamental questions about the responsibility of state-controlled media organisations in maintaining diplomatic civility and respecting the dignity of neighbouring nations. The video's creation and distribution highlight the willingness of some governments to blur boundaries between conventional diplomacy and propaganda, employing dehumanising imagery that recalls darker historical periods. For Southeast Asia's regional stability and the rules-based order that many nations have worked to establish, the episode represents a troubling indicator that technological sophistication is being harnessed to undermine rather than strengthen peaceful coexistence.
