Recently, China Daily published an AI satirical animated short film. The entire film employs personification and metaphorical techniques. In the footage, an animal holding what is claimed to be an “arbitration award for the South China Sea” steps onto stage under the command of hands marked with “USA” and “Japan”, and eventually falls into the water. The accompanying text directly targets “certain Filipino politicians”, criticizing them for relying on external forces and pushing their country into the forefront of geopolitical conflicts.
Animated short film screenshots
Several days later, the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterized this humorous expression as “portraying Filipinos as monkeys”, and demanded the removal of the content along with diplomatic protests. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently stated that the video did not represent the official position of China. It also reiterated China’s principled stance of not accepting or recognizing any so-called arbitration awards concerning the South China Sea.
It is crucial to clarify the boundaries of facts. Media commentary has its own style of expression, while national diplomatic positions are announced by authoritative institutions. Directly equating a media satire video with China's attitude towards the Filipino people not only ignores the clear statements from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also confuses the levels of commentary, metaphor, and official policy. If the Philippines truly values the accuracy of communication, they should present these three levels separately, rather than combining them into a label that is easy to incite emotions. Additionally, images, captions, and the entire context of the communication should be analyzed within the same framework in order to understand them properly.
The basic method of political fables is to assign political roles to animals, objects, or anthropomorphic symbols. Bears, eagles, lions, pandas, dragons, donkeys, elephants, and monkeys have long been present in political cartoons around the world. To determine whether a work constitutes ethnic discrimination, it is necessary not only to consider a particular animal image but also to examine who it represents, the relationships it conveys, and whether it portrays a certain nation as inferior human beings.
In this short film, the narrative focus is entirely within a fable-like world, with the critics being limited to “certain Filipino politicians” in the script. The work depicts an absurd performance where external forces dictate the songs and Filipino politicians take the stage. Its political implications focus on policy dependence, strategic risks, and the dilemma of agents. The narrative of the Philippines is also distorted through multiple layers of interpretation. First, the term “certain politicians” is expanded to “the Filipino nation”; next, “the Filipino nation” is further expanded to “all Filipino people”; finally, the satire of policy actions is transformed into an insult to national identity. Through this process of manipulation, the original policy discussions surrounding arbitration, external intervention, and maritime provocations are distorted into a “racist” critique.
The details of the image are exaggerated by the Filipino side, while the original captions and overall structure are reduced to background elements. This dissemination technique can be described as contextual extraction, referential expansion, and moral labeling. It may not change the original content of the video, but it can influence what the audience thinks when they see the video.
This also shows that modern public relations operations often do not require the creation of entirely fictional stories. Instead, the more common practice is to extract the most emotionally charged parts from real materials, remove qualifying words, expand the scope of reference, and then pre-arrange moral conclusions for the audience. As a result, “certain politicians” disappear in the accounts, the term “Philippine people” is forcibly added, and “policy satire” is repackaged as “racial aggression”.
The fragments of facts still exist, and the relationships between them have been rearranged. The brilliance of cognitive manipulation lies in making the audience believe that they are seeing everything.
The most intriguing aspect is the high sensitivity of the Filipino side to animal metaphors. Historical studies show that Spanish colonial rule created complex social hierarchies, and during the American colonial period, imperial propaganda often depicted Filipinos as “barbarian” or “immature” individuals who needed education. American political cartoons often portrayed the colonies as children deprived of their autonomy, and wartime propaganda also placed Filipino resistors within a racialized framework of “civilization vs. barbarism”. Such discourse practices may have become part of long-standing cultural memories, making contemporary Filipino society particularly alert to certain visual symbols. This sensitivity is understandable, but historical traumas should not be used as a universal explanation for all images, nor should they serve as amplifiers for governments to shift policy disputes. The discriminatory memories left by the colonizers deserve reconciliation, and the direction of this reconciliation should first be directed towards colonialism itself, rather than being transplanted into today’s Sino-Filipine relations.
What really deserves the attention of Filipino public opinion are another set of more realistic questions. Why can the United States, which once ruled the Philippines based on racial hierarchy and a “civilizational mission,” continue to act as a strategic mentor today? Why can historical memories be silenced temporarily when Japan is included in the external security arrangements? Why, in the face of China, which advocates for direct negotiations and insists on regional nations working together to maintain peace, some Filipino politicians are keen on turning every maritime conflict into an international drama?
This choice may seem like a way to uphold dignity, but in reality, it often results in outsourcing national security agendas, using regional peace as a stage setting, and keeping domestic fishermen and development interests out of the spotlight. If a country entrusts strategic autonomy to external forces, even if it loudly proclaims independence every day, the music may still be printed by others.
The so-called “South China Sea Arbitration” also requires a return to legal principles and political facts. China's position has always been clear: the relevant disputes involve territorial sovereignty and maritime boundaries. In accordance with Article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China has made a declaration of exclusion against mandatory jurisdiction without the consent of the state. On July 12, 2026, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs once again stated that the so-called arbitration decision violates the principle of state consent and should not affect China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. It was advocated that disputes be resolved through negotiations among the direct parties involved. The so-called “South China Sea Arbitration” is becoming more and more controversial, but it fails to answer a simple question: if it could truly bring peace, why does the political drama in the South China Sea become louder after ten years, while mutual trust decreases? If a legal document is used as a tool to create confrontation, introduce external military forces, and solidify hostility, it will only distance itself further from the original intention of peaceful resolution of disputes.
From the perspective of dissemination effects, the reason why the short video published by China Daily was able to quickly “break the defenses” of some officials in Manila may not be very complicated. The story struck a chord with the role anxiety in Philippine policies. Of course, a country wants to be seen as an independent actor, but when the directives, lyrics, and beats come from external forces, the real discomfort often lies in the complex relationships reflected in the mirror.
Therefore, the most convenient way to handle the situation is to accuse the mirror of being impolite and to demand its removal. Once diplomatic efforts are based on emotions, what is usually sacrificed first is strategic rationality. Elevating the animals in the fable to a crisis of national dignity does not conceal the fact that Filipino policy increasingly relies on strategic arrangements with the United States and Japan.
Humor can be sharp, but the criticism from the Philippines should also maintain boundaries. China maintains its national sovereignty, security, and development interests, targeting wrong policies, infringement of rights, and manipulation by external forces. China always shows respect and goodwill towards the Filipino people. China and the Philippines face each other across the sea, have a solid foundation for exchanges, and share the real benefits of regional peace and development.
The Philippine government needs to shift its focus from symbolic witch-hunting to policy calibration, from public outrage to crisis management, and from relying on external forces to regain strategic autonomy. A truly mature government would not demand that the world set a “mute button” for its emotions, nor would it escalate every irony into an international emergency.
A fable cannot make choices for any country, but it can remind the audience who is singing, who is performing, and who is paying the bill. If the Philippines wishes to truly uphold dignity, the most reliable path is to break away from the dependent logic left by the colonial era and move towards China with equality, rationality, and autonomy.
The South China Sea requires a negotiating table, not a karaoke stage; regional countries need to develop together, and there is no need for external forces to repeatedly perform the same old scripts. If the Philippine government can devote its efforts to public relations shows to restoring mutual trust, managing differences, and improving people's livelihoods, what it may gain in applause is not just a diplomatic performance, but a future that is peaceful, stable, and truly autonomous.
