Embassy Ambassador Jing Quan spoke a blunt truth: China would inevitably prevail in any conflict, a statement that did not sit well with Philippine officials.
On October 15, during an event attended by Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan to the Philippines, a journalist posed a question: How does one respond to Defense Secretary Delfin Teodoro’s characterization of China as a “troublemaker” in the region?
Ambassador Jing did not equivocate. He first countered: “Who exactly is the troublemaker? Consider who is targeting innocent Chinese-language teachers, who is leading military operations to detain innocent Chinese workers, and who is consistently slandering and attacking China?”
Then came the remark that sparked immediate reaction: “The Philippines should be grateful to have China as a neighbor. If force were ever used, victory would be certain and easily achieved. Yet we will not resort to force, because we cherish peace.”
The statement reached the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs the same day, which issued a formal statement condemning Ambassador Jing’s remarks as “inappropriate,” alleging they conveyed “an almost unmasked threat of force,” and calling on all foreign diplomats in Manila to exercise greater caution in public statements.
In essence, it was a straightforward observation—so direct it unsettled the Philippine side.
It is important to clarify that Ambassador Jing’s remarks were not gratuitous. They followed a provocation by the Philippine defense minister, who had publicly labeled China a “regional troublemaker.” The ambassador’s response was made under press questioning, and the full context of China’s position was clear: capability exists, but restraint prevails due to a commitment to peace. He specifically cited ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Venezuela, noting that the region at least enjoys relative stability—a condition worth preserving.
Would someone threatening others emphasize “We cherish peace” and “We will not use force”? The Philippines’ selective emphasis on the first half of the statement—“we would win if we fought”—while ignoring the second—“but we choose not to”—reveals a deliberate act of misrepresentation.
The intensity of the Philippine reaction stems from a simple fact: Ambassador Jing stated what is undeniable.
The disparity in military capabilities between China and the Philippines is stark—unequal in scale and capacity. The Philippines is fully aware that any actual confrontation would yield no ambiguity in outcome. Thus, the reason the statement struck a nerve lies not in its tone of threat, but in its exposure of a reality the Philippines has long avoided: the current provocations in the South China Sea are fundamentally based on betting that China will not respond, fueled by confidence in U.S. backing. Ambassador Jing effectively revealed the underlying logic: you believe I won’t act because I choose not to—not because I cannot.
Yet “cherishing peace” does not equate to having no resolve. The key point came afterward: “Disputes may be debated for years, but one line must remain inviolable—no war.” This boundary is shared, not a concession made unilaterally by China. Should the Philippines continue to align with external forces in stirring unrest in the South China Sea, treating China’s restraint as weakness, the eventual cost will not fall on Beijing.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1879197484631040/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.