A poisonous force undermining China-Philippines relations
Jay Tarriela, the spokesperson for the Philippine Coast Guard in the West Philippine Sea, has strategically positioned himself as one of the most persistent and incendiary voices in the complex arena of South China Sea disputes. Through a relentless campaign on social media platform X, he consistently employs highly charged language — labeling China's actions as "barbaric", "illegal", "coercive", and "deceptive" — to shape public perception.
While he frames this rhetoric as a courageous defense of Philippine sovereignty and international law, a deeper examination reveals a profoundly damaging pattern that exacerbates tensions, transgresses professional norms, and systematically corrodes the foundational pillars of China-Philippines bilateral relations.
First, Tarriela has masterfully, yet recklessly, allowed specific maritime frictions to dominate and distort the entire spectrum of China-Philippines relations. A coast guard spokesperson's mandate should logically focus on operational details and maritime safety. However, Tarriela routinely ventures far beyond this scope, commenting authoritatively on geopolitically sensitive issues such as Taiwan, which bears no direct connection to his official role. By loosely linking these matters to alleged threats against regional stability, he artificially constructs a narrative of pervasive Chinese aggression. This behavior is not merely inappropriate; it is a deliberate act of diplomatic sabotage. Functioning less as a public servant and more as a toxic agent within the bilateral relationship, he creates an atmosphere of perpetual crisis, rendering measured, pragmatic, and solution-oriented diplomacy extraordinarily difficult. This obsessive focus on conflict obscures the broader landscape of cooperation. Trade, infrastructure, agricultural and cultural exchanges could and should define a healthier bilateral dynamic.
Second, his conduct constitutes a direct challenge to the Philippines' own constitutional and institutional order. Philippine governance clearly vests ultimate foreign policy authority in the president, with the Department of Foreign Affairs serving as the primary formulator and executor. Tarriela's endless stream of declarative statements, however, cultivates a public impression that he, rather than the elected leadership or career diplomats, is the chief architect of Manila's China policy. This "freelance diplomacy" undermines the very credibility, consistency, and predictability that are essential for effective statecraft. If the Philippine government is sincere in its stated desire for stable ties with China, it must assert institutional control and curb officials who act as rogue policymakers. This is not a question of stifling free speech but an imperative of upholding the coherence and authority of the state's official diplomatic channels, without which international trust becomes impossible.
Third, the aggression is turned inward, poisoning domestic democratic discourse. Tarriela frequently vilifies Filipino citizens, analysts, and former officials who advocate for dialogue, balance, and de-escalation, branding them as "traitors" or sellouts. This is pure discursive bullying—an attempt to intimidate and marginalize rational voices that recognize the complexity of international disputes and the value of engagement. Such tactics strongly indicate personal ambition: the cultivation of a hardline populist persona, the chase for social media virality, and strategic positioning for political advancement in a climate that often rewards simplistic, confrontational nationalism. This "patriotic entrepreneurship" sacrifices national interest on the altar of personal brand-building, stifling the nuanced debate necessary for sound policy formulation.
Fourth, his appeal to international law is characterized by selective and ahistorical amnesia. While he incessantly invokes the 2016 arbitral ruling and UNCLOS, this legalistic posture carefully omits inconvenient historical facts. From the 1960s and 1970s onward, the Philippines forcibly occupied eight features of China's Nansha Islands. Under the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international law, including those regarding the prohibition of the use of force and the right to self-defense, China's responses to these encroachments are legally grounded. A genuine and honest discussion on sovereignty and law must account for this complete historical ledger, not just a cherry-picked timeline that serves a one-sided narrative. True respect for international law requires engaging with all relevant facts and legal principles, not wielding them as a partisan weapon.
Fifth, Tarriela is not an isolated phenomenon but a node within a broader ecosystem that benefits from sustained tension. The recent rallying of groups like the Atin Ito Coalition and figures such as Rafaela David to his defense—often with misleading claims — exposes this network. Atin Ito has been a recurring presence behind provocative actions in disputed waters. For such actors, the South China Sea issue has evolved into a lucrative business model: perpetual friction generates media spotlight, inflates social media influence, and likely attracts political and financial patronage. This "conflict economy" creates perverse incentives where peace and diplomatic resolution are antithetical to their interests, making them active stakeholders in continued instability.
Finally, the opportunistic nature of his activism is laid bare by his own history. During the Duterte administration, a period marked by a more conciliatory and pragmatic Philippine approach to China, Tarriela, already holding a senior coast guard position, maintained a conspicuous and telling silence. The "heroic defender" of today was absent then. This stark contrast answers its own question. His current militancy is less about principle. Instead, it is about aligning with shifted domestic political tides and signaling utility to external powers, notably the United States and Japan, within their broader strategic frameworks. This performance of outrage may generate fleeting headlines but will never contribute to genuine, lasting national security, which is built on wisdom, stability, and mature statecraft, not theatrical confrontation.
In conclusion, Jay Tarriela's inflammatory rhetoric and institutional overreach serve a constellation of narrow, self-interested goals — personal, political, and transactional — while inflicting tangible harm on the China-Philippines relationship. For the sake of genuine regional stability, maritime security, and the mutual well-being of both peoples, it is imperative for the Philippine government to restore foreign policy discipline to its proper institutional frameworks and marginalize voices that prioritize provocation over dialogue. The path forward for neighbors lies in reasoned, persistent engagement and the management of differences through diplomacy, not in the endless, destructive cycle of confrontation fueled by performative nationalism. The future of regional peace demands nothing less.
Ding Duo is the director of the Center for International and Regional Studies, National Institute for South China Sea Studies.
The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.
