China's Digital Warfare in the South China Sea

400 Facebook posts. Four years of systematic messaging. What China's embassy in Manila has been doing on social media isn't diplomacy—it's warfare by other means.

The Marcos administration's transparency policy stripped away Beijing's cooperative facade, exposing the stark gap between China's diplomatic rhetoric and its dangerous behavior at sea. But the water cannons and ramming incidents represent only the visible edge of a broader campaign. Equally consequential is China's sustained effort to disinform, confuse, and delegitimize Philippine actions through coordinated online messaging.

From Institutions to Individuals: The New Blame Game

Something changed after 2023. Earlier embassy messaging targeted abstract entities—"the Philippines," "the Philippine side," government institutions. Then the pattern shifted. Posts increasingly named individuals, particularly Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela—often accusing him of lying, smearing, or misleading the public.

In the first three weeks of 2026 alone, the Chinese Embassy published at least 15 separate Facebook posts naming or directly addressing Tarriela. No other Philippine official has been singled out with comparable frequency. Recently, the targeting expanded to include Senator Risa Hontiveros, Senator Francis Pangilinan, and Representative Chel Diokno.

This isn't incidental. It reflects a classic information-operations tactic: personifying responsibility to reshape the narrative terrain. By attaching alleged wrongdoing to named spokespersons—especially elected officials who might run for higher office—the embassy transforms a state-level dispute over facts and law into a personalized contest over credibility and character.

When Tarriela is mentioned, the language changes character entirely. Legal argumentation recedes, replaced by aggressive vocabulary focused on moral and reputational attack: "lie," "smear," "mislead," "manipulative," "distorted." Even the repeated phrase "so-called spokesperson" strips institutional legitimacy from his office.

The Power of Repetition

Despite covering nearly four years and 400 posts, the Chinese Embassy relies on remarkably narrow vocabulary. The word "illegal"—describing Philippine presence in its own UNCLOS-mandated exclusive economic zone—appears more than 270 times. "Provocation" appears over 200 times. "So-called" appears more than 100 times.

This repetition isn't crude propaganda. It's disciplined messaging that blurs lines for Filipinos who may not be paying attention to the disputes. Over time, repeated illegal claims start to feel normal—and what feels normal is often mistaken as legitimate.

"Illegal" casts Philippine maritime activities as unlawful while framing China's coercive actions as "law enforcement." The asymmetry is deliberate. "Provocation" reverses causality, portraying China as reactive while lawful Philippine operations become deliberate troublemaking. "So-called" denies epistemic legitimacy, signaling that Philippine terms and claims are unworthy of serious consideration.

Strategic Timing and Tone Modulation

The embassy's rhetoric isn't static. It intensifies around July each year—coinciding with the anniversary of the 2016 Arbitral Award. Stock phrases like "null and void" and "no binding force" reappear with ritualistic regularity, recycling long-debunked arguments about China not consenting to arbitration.

During ASEAN summit periods, the tone shifts. Messaging emphasizes dialogue, consultation, and regional processes, even as coercive actions continue. The objective is reputational management: appearing reasonable when the region is watching closely.

The American Foil

No Chinese narrative is complete without the United States as antagonist. By recasting South China Sea disputes as "China vs. America" rather than "China vs. Philippines," the embassy reduces Manila to a mere proxy. This delegitimizes Philippine sovereignty while portraying legitimate security partnerships as foreign manipulation.

The messaging consistently portrays the US as the puppet master, pulling strings to destabilize the region for its own interests. This narrative serves multiple functions: it denies Philippine agency, justifies Chinese actions as defensive responses, and appeals to anti-American sentiment in the region.