According to the Global Firepower Index, China has the world’s largest active military, with an estimated 2,035,000 active-duty personnel in 2026. Global Firepower also estimates 510,000 reserve personnel and 625,000 paramilitary personnel.
Meanwhile, The Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington D.C., said that “Chinese air-to-air and long-range surface-to-air missiles are among the best in the world in terms of range, guidance and counterjamming.” It added that “Chinese anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles are considered the best currently.”
Granted, mere numbers and technological advancement alone do not determine the outcome of every possible conflict.
Ambassador Jing was reacting to our Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr.’s statement that branded China as the regional “troublemaker,” a reply to Vice President Sara Duterte’s description of the Philippines as a troublemaker of Southeast Asia, amid ongoing tensions in the West Philippine Sea.
He didn’t commit a classic Freudian slip. He was flexing China’s newfound muscles as the rising hegemon on the global stage. And, as proof of China’s supposed magnanimity, he added that China prefers peace.
Our officials were right to view the statement as a provocative, “thinly veiled threat.” Because it was, his denial notwithstanding.
Malacañang summoned the ambassador to convey our country’s strong objections. And that should have been the end of it.
But no. Some lawmakers were in an uproar. Some called for his expulsion, and Sen. Kiko Pangilinan urged him to return to China.
Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way defending the Chinese ambassador’s actions. However, it’s hard to miss the braggadocio behind some public officials’ rhetoric.
Malacañang knows where we stand. And that would explain why President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is not inclined to declare the ambassador persona non grata and why the latter will not be expelled any time soon. The Palace was then quick to reiterate that the Philippines “remains committed to a peaceful, rules-based approach” in the hopes of de-escalating the situation. Even Secretary Teodoro has warned that “the verbal exchange could carry economic impacts.”
To admit the truth is by no means unpatriotic. But condemning Filipinos for acknowledging an uncomfortable fact is not a substitute for strategy.
Yes, it is in our best interest to protect Philippine sovereign rights and jurisdiction in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea. And yes, China claims sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea, including the waters and features inside our EEZ.
Of course, we can’t ignore continued Chinese incursions into waters where the Philippines exercises sovereign rights and jurisdiction. We condemn those actions. We invoke the 2016 arbitral ruling, which rejected China’s claimed historic rights within its nine-dash line and affirmed Philippine maritime entitlements in areas not overlapped by any possible Chinese entitlement.
But the problem is that China does not accept the ruling. Powerful states often invoke international law when it serves them and dismiss it when it does not. That does not make China’s position right. It makes a rules-based response more necessary, not less. Our foreign policy cannot be effective if it ignores the reality of China’s power, but neither can it be legitimate if it abandons the rights and rules that protect smaller states.
Law alone will not prevent an accident at sea. By Beijing’s account, China “has repeatedly called for dialogue and consultation to manage tensions in the West Philippine Sea,” and, according to a Philstar.com report, the two countries reached a “preliminary consensus” on creating a roadmap. Ambassador Jing has also argued that direct military-to-military channels, which Defense Secretary Teodoro suspended nearly three years ago, are needed to reduce misunderstandings and prevent conflict. Manila has its reasons. Teodoro says he saw no net benefit in the channels and that Beijing twists such contacts into propaganda, while the AFP says the mechanisms failed to produce meaningful results amid continued Chinese provocations. Diplomatic and coast guard lines remain open. These are serious objections and no one should reward coercion with concessions. But the practical question is narrower: whether a tightly limited line, used only for incident management, would cost more than it saves when ships and aircraft meet at close range. Reasonable people can differ on that.
Some of our lawmakers take reassurance from our defense pact with the United States. But Philippine policy should not assume automatic, unlimited US military intervention in every contingency. Let’s not be naïve in thinking that our interest is necessarily Washington’s interest. It’s not a given that the US will have our back should matters turn for the worse with our much larger neighbor.
That’s why we need to be pragmatic when dealing with China. Pragmatism does not mean silence. It means protecting Philippine rights through law, coalition-building, a sustained coast guard presence and credible deterrence, while weighing whether carefully limited crisis channels would help keep an incident from becoming something worse.
