Sec. Gilbert Teodoro’s elegant rebuke of Chinese propaganda

The International Institute for Strategic Studies recently concluded its annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. With 47 countries in attendance, the forum provides a platform for defense ministers, military leaders and senior officials to engage in discussions relating to regional security challenges.

Philippine Secretary of Defense Gilberto Teodoro was among the keynote speakers of the event. In his address, Teodoro outlined the Philippines’ position on three key issues: the Philippine’s position amid the intensifying US-China rivalry; the reasons why the Philippines acts the way it does amid the conflict in the West Philippine Sea and the evolving role and limitations of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations.

PH, US & China

China sent no official representative to the Shangri-La Dialogue. Instead, it sent members of the National Defense University posing as “media reporters.” Their mission was to inject Chinese propaganda messages into the forum. One of them asked Secretary Teodoro why the Philippines is allowing itself to be a proxy of America amid the US-China “cold war.”

Secretary Teodoro emphasized that while the US-China rivalry is raging, it must not be made the overarching narrative of all conflicts. Doing so unfairly portrays the legitimate actions of states like the Philippines as being done at the behest of stronger powers.

Secretary Teodoro reiterated that the Philippines’ actions in the South China Sea are not a function of US-China rivalry. Rather, it is a result of China’s overreach in its nine-, 10- or 11-dash line (it changes according to China’s need), which is illegal, having no basis in international law.

China’s territorial grab

Another Chinese “journalist” asserted that while Malaysia and Vietnam have disputes with China, both manage their differences through peaceful dialogue. Why can’t the Philippines follow?

To this, Secretary Teodoro responded with barbed, elegant clarity. Let me quote him:

“Thank you for the propaganda spiels disguised as questions.

“First, the comparison between the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. Let us not forget that while we are members of ASEAN, we are sovereign countries, each with its own territorial integrity and sovereignty. And I am sure that if what China is doing to the Philippines is done to Malaysia or to any ASEAN country, you will see a different reaction (from them)…

“On the dialogue with China, … the fact that the question was asked in the way it was engenders a deficit of trust in China’s words vis-à-vis its actions.

“Just look back to 1995 to a place called Mischief Reef. There were a few bamboo structures erected there and China said that these were temporary havens for fisherfolk. Now you have an artificial military island, heavily militarized.

“China says that it has peaceful intentions. Why does it continue to deny the Philippines its rightful provenance under international law and UNCLOS? And as proof of this, we do not stand alone. No country in the world supports the nine-dash line claim of China or the idea that waters within this nine-dash line are internal waters of China.

“Several countries in the world, no less than 50, have joined the Philippines in condemning China’s behavior in the South China Sea. None have agreed with China and none has condemned the Philippines for standing up against China in the face of a threat to its territorial integrity and sovereignty…

“And thus, for dialogue to be effective, it must be coupled with trust. And China has a lot of trust-building to do to be an effective negotiating partner in dispute settlement…”

My take on Chinese hypocrisy

China wants to convey two messages to the world. First, that it indeed has sovereign and legal rights over the South China Sea by virtue of the nine-dash line and second, that the Philippines is obstructing China from exercising its rights by engaging in illegal maneuvers and provocative activities, aided by the US and countries that lean to Western doctrine.

China cannot have it both ways. It cannot illegally grab the sovereign territories of others and also play the victim. It cannot call for dialogue when it systematically employs grey zone tactics like firing laser guns, attacking with water cannons and boarding boats of adversaries and slashing them with knives.

There cannot be dialogue when China habitually peddles lies (eg. the Mischief Reef narrative) and disinformation (eg. that the Philippines is acting as a proxy of America). There cannot be cooperation when China uses coercion to bully its adversaries to submission.

These are the reasons why the Philippines acts as it does. It was the lone country among the claimants of parts of the South China Sea with the courage to take China to court and win. It is in the forefront in exposing China’s bad behavior. It is leading the way in advocating the rules-based order to settle disputes.

Hence, the Philippine reaction towards China is not one born out of emotion or malevolent intentions. Rather, its reaction is pragmatic with the view of defending its sovereign rights.

The state of multilateral institutions

For the past 80 years, the rules-based international order – upheld by the United Nations and other multilateral institutions – has fostered global stability which allowed nations to thrive in relative peace.

But the world is changing. Global interconnectedness – through migration, trade and security alliances – has never been greater. The war in Ukraine, for example, has driven up energy and commodity prices in Asia. The conflict between Israel and certain Arab states disrupts supply chains around the world. In short, in today’s world, events in one region inevitably have consequences far beyond their borders.

Amid recent disputes, multilateral institutions have faced increased difficulty in maintaining peace and security. The mechanisms which were once effective in blocking acts of aggression and in restoring peace are no longer as effective as they used to be. This is attributed to gridlocks in decision making, the failure to promote dialogue and the snail pace by which reforms are carried out to adopt to change.

Under the current system, the inability of multilateral institutions to arrive at peaceful resolutions has become the norm, rather than the exception. This underscores the need for reforms that reflect today’s realities. To this, Secretary Teodoro offers three recommendations.

First, enhance inter-regional security cooperation. This can be done by increasing dialogue among regional blocks such as the EU, ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council on shared security concerns.

Two, establish a revised legal framework, grounded on the rule of law, that is fit-for-purpose for the issues that face us today. Such legal framework is to be jointly and cooperatively enforced by member-countries.

Three, the inordinate veto privilege of powerful countries must be curtailed since its exercise is often a hindrance to the interest of the world at large. The Philippines advocates greater representation of smaller states, particularly in the UN Security Council.

The Philippines commits to advocate constructive solutions if/when it is elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2027-2028.

To sum it up, Secretary Teodoro highlighted not only the Philippines’ commitment to upholding the rules-based order but also the important role of multilateral institutions in addressing global conflicts. As the world continues to change, it’s imperative that multilateral institutions evolve to remain effective. Reform – particularly in enhancing representativeness, adapting legal frameworks to modern realities and fostering meaningful cooperation across regions – is essential to maintaining peace.

The Philippines stands ready to contribute to these efforts, anchored in the belief that a stronger, more responsive rules-based order remains the best foundation for lasting peace and shared prosperity.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan