From the Fringes: A cooling off period for the PH-CN socmed feud

From the Fringes: A cooling off period for the PH-CN socmed feud

By Jerome Aning | November 6, 2026

The phone conversation last Nov. 3 between Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Ma. Theresa P. Lazaro and her Chinese counterpart, Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi, should start a cooling-off period of sorts to the ongoing heated exchanges of views on social media between Philippine government officials and the Chinese Embassy in Manila, along with their respective supporters, regarding the South China Sea dispute and other side issues.

Each side gave its own account of the conversation.  On X (formerly Twitter), Lazaro said she and Wang had “a frank and constructive discussion on the direction of Philippines-China relations”. The secretary added that both sides “emphasized the need for continued diplomatic dialogue and the proper management of differences anchored on mutual respect.” A DFA statement later said the conservation was “frank, pragmatic, and constructive, and reflected the interest of both sides in a stable and predictable relationship founded on mutual respect and mutually beneficial cooperation.”

Lazaro underscored that good relations between the Philippines and China serve the interests of both countries and of the region, and must be sustained through regular high-level exchanges, ministry-to-ministry channels, and the appropriate bilateral and regional mechanisms.  She and Wang, according to the DFA, shared the understanding that such a relationship rests on three principles: first, that both sides maintain diplomacy and dialogue; second, that both sides avoid actions and rhetoric that could needlessly undermine relations or heighten tensions; and third, that both sides resolve disputes peacefully and manage differences responsibly.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun, on Facebook, provided further details of the conversation.  He said Wang told Lazaro that China-Philippines relations were facing “malicious interference” at present and that few Filipino politicians, “out of political prejudice and self-interest, have repeatedly attacked and smeared China.”  According to Guo, such deeds “crossed China’s red lines, politicized normal economic, trade and people-to-people exchanges, and infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese personnel and institutions in the Philippines.”

“Such deeds are irrational and intolerable, and damaging to the Philippines’ own international image,” Guo said, as he called on the Philippine side to “exercise greater restraint over the individuals concerned and ensure that its policy toward China reflects a rational and unified voice.”  He also reiterated Beijing’s positions on the maritime dispute as well as Taiwan issue, another item that has cropped up in the social media debates, adding, “China’s resolve to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity and achieve national reunification remains unwavering. The Philippine side should faithfully implement the one-China policy and exercise prudence in its words and actions on maritime issues.”

The Lazaro-Wang phone call coincided with the release of a statement titled “A Joint Appeal of Various Sectors and Organizations for a Constructive Philippine-China Relations” by 23 organizations of business, labor, overseas Filipino workers, educators, economists, farmers, and youth.  Among the 23 signatories were leaders of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Employers Confederation of the Philippines, Federation of Free Workers, and associations of exporters, foreign buyers, food processors, hoteliers, service contractors, franchise holders, and semiconductor and electronic companies,

The group expressed concerns that the heated exchanges were threatening to spill into the economic relations between the two countries.  “We respectfully appeal to Philippine and Chinese authorities to lower the temperature, restore disciplined diplomatic engagement, and build a stable, respectful, and productive bilateral relationship. Let us pursue principled diplomacy over public antagonism, economic cooperation over avoidable friction, and strategic foresight over short-term political posturing,” it said.

The signatories said all parties “should avoid inflammatory rhetoric, public recriminations, and social media exchanges that could further strain bilateral relations.”  For the Philippines, they said national interest demands that “the path forward must be one of sobriety, strategic clarity, economic pragmatism, and constructive engagement with China and the wider international community.”  The group pointed out the need for a foreign policy “that is principled yet pragmatic, resolute yet diplomatic, and anchored in protecting sovereignty, economic security, and long-term development.”  All these, they added, can be done through diplomacy that is “best pursued through established channels, coordinated institutions, informed dialogue, mutual respect, and a clear understanding of national interests.”

“Whatever our political differences or maritime disputes, constructive diplomacy and stable economic relations are essential to protecting livelihoods, maintaining investor confidence, controlling costs, accelerating clean-energy adoption, and sustaining development.  Because trade with China represents a far greater share of Philippine external trade than the Philippine market represents of China’s global trade, we must practice careful economic statecraft while pursuing strategic diversification, stronger domestic industries, local assembly and manufacturing, and sound diplomacy,” the group said.

The group referred to government statistics showing that in first semester of 2026, China and Hong Kong constitute the Philippines’ largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 30 percent (26.3% of exports, 27% to 29.5% of imports) of total international trade in recent years, while the Philippines represents less than 1% (0.3 to 0.5) of China’s total global trade.  The Philippines, it said, also benefits significantly from overseas Filipino workers in China, Hong Kong and Macau whose remittances support millions of families, strengthen consumption, fund education, housing, healthcare, and small businesses, and contribute to foreign-exchange earnings and economic resilience.

For its part, the DFA said it regarded the multisectoral group’s appeal as “a constructive contribution that underscores the value of candor, composure, principled conduct, sound judgment, and measured engagement in the conduct of foreign relations.”

Should it materialize, a respite from the heated social media exchanges is a welcome development, especially since both the Philippines and China are hosting important international events this month.  The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and East Asia Summit meetings will be held in Manila from Nov. 16 to 18 while the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit will take place in Shenzen, China from Nov. 18 to 19.  Let us be gracious hosts for the moment, prioritizing and attending to our guests, and ensuring the success of the gatherings.

For several months now, the social media exchanges between the two camps have been ongoing and, frankly speaking, they are getting more tedious and toxic by the day, except for the occasional clever retorts and witticisms, as well as “new” incidents that would antagonize one side and result in another round of arguments and counter-arguments. To recall, recent individual actions by either camp, not necessarily related to the maritime dispute, had triggered prompt and stinging responses from the other side.  For the Chinese side, these were the actions against Chinese workers and teachers in the Philippines and pronouncements that support Taiwan.  For the Philippine side, these were accusations of Chinese actions in Ayungin (Second Thomas) and Panatag (Scarborough) shoals, the portrayal of Filipinos as monkeys by a Chinese media outlet, and the ambassador’s statement that China “may easily win” if it chooses to use force to settle the maritime dispute.

I used to read comments on the social media posts by both camps to see if their intended audiences are the message correctly. However, I got turned off by the obvious troll accounts that were increasingly dominating the comments sections with their plentiful arguments that are either incomplete, misinformed, digressive, hysterical, or unhelpful.  Also infuriating are those who are so passionate about their views that they resort to labeling as traitors, spies or pawns all others who share or accept points of views raised by the other camp.

As a journalist who has monitored through the years the developments on the South China Sea dispute, I can say that both sides should be commended for playing their roles well in exhaustively (though not always acceptably) explaining their government’s positions. The Chinese embassy, through its ambassador and spokesperson, have consistently elucidated Beijing’s core stands on the maritime dispute insofar as the diplomatic and international relations aspects are concerned. The Philippine side, curiously, has no diplomat assigned to quickly respond to embassy posts on social media, although the DFA sometimes issue statements to clarify matters or admonish the other camp. Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela and Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro have diligently taken the task of countering Chinese claims every now and then, although I am uncomfortable and wary when they speak about matters touching on diplomacy and trade relations that are outside their areas of jurisdiction or expertise.

We have to bear in mind, as I wrote in an earlier column, that the Chinese and Philippine views on sovereignty and sovereign rights vis-a-vis maritime entitlements in the South China Sea stem from different positions that are irreconcilable.  This does not mean, however, that the two countries should stop having good relations.  The same is true between the Philippines and the other claimant countries, upon which the 2016 arbitral award is not even binding at all.  For us netizens, we should continue digesting, dissecting, discerning, discussing and debating, soberly, the posts and points raised on social media by government officials and experts regarding the dispute. Silencing, shaming or gaslighting those with contrary views hinders open debate and undermines freedom of thought and expression. Toning down the rhetoric is not tantamount to losing the argument. In discussing geopolitics and national policies, we can agree to disagree, without being disagreeable and hostile to one another.

—————-

Comments are welcome on my page

<https://www.facebook.com/fromthefringesph/>