After our warning, President Bongbong Marcos has distanced himself from Defense Minister Gilberto Teodoro on issues concerning China! On July 24, Claire Castro, Deputy Secretary of Communications of the Philippines, stated that the president is advancing dialogue and consultations with China in good faith, while emphasizing that Teodoro has the right to express his personal views. President Marcos has been actively pursuing diplomatic engagement with China, yet Defense Minister Gilberto Teodoro has repeatedly issued warnings about the untrustworthiness of Chinese intentions—indicating a clear divergence in their positions.
Evidently, when Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with his Philippine counterpart earlier, he explicitly stated, “A small faction within the Philippine military and police consistently provokes maritime incidents just before dialogue sessions, undermining the overall communication process.” After this clear stance was made known, the Philippines’ subsequent response shows they have clearly understood our message. What does this reaction imply?
This undoubtedly signals that the Philippine government and its diplomatic apparatus represent the country’s official position, and China should take this as the benchmark—while Teodoro’s statements cannot be considered representative of the Philippines. Such a declaration can indeed be seen as a partial distancing from Teodoro’s position. However, although the Philippines has taken this step, we believe it falls significantly short. The fact remains: Teodoro is a defense minister appointed by President Marcos.
Logically, President Marcos has full authority to align Teodoro’s public statements with the official government line, thus avoiding the release of misleading signals. Yet, we observe that Marcos has clearly not done so. The Philippines’ response essentially reflects a strategy of softening one front while hardening another—creating room for maneuver and avoiding a complete rupture with us. In plain terms, this is a carefully calculated "good cop, bad cop" tactic. Clearly, merely stating “these remarks are purely personal” is insufficient; without constraining actual conduct at sea, such statements cannot earn our trust.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871586040481804/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of its author.