Another day, another act of unprovoked Chinese aggression, another delicately agnostic characterization of a China-initiated altercation by the world’s news services. I refer to China’s recent ramming and water-cannoning of a Philippine ship in the South China Sea, which Reuters calls a “clash” in its headline and story (Reuters, August 25, 2024).
The Philippines and China clashed in disputed waters of the South China Sea on Sunday over what Manila said was a resupply mission for fishermen, the latest in a series of sea and air confrontations in the strategic waterway.
The incident overshadows efforts by both nations to rebuild trust and better manage disputes after months of confrontations, including a violent clash in June where a Filipino sailor lost a finger.
Any reader who feels he’s gotten the gist after reading the headline and first couple of paragraphs is much mistaken. It’s as if the city desk had reported a “clash” between muggers and a pedestrian on Main Street while carefully withholding any hint of who might have inaugurated the episode.
In the fullness of time Reuters does make clear, without saying so in so many words of the kind that might be used in a plain report, that China is, as usual, at fault.
The Philippines accused China of “aggressive and dangerous manoeuvres” to block the resupply mission, while China’s coast guard said it had taken “control measures” against a vessel that had “illegally” entered the waters and repeatedly approached Chinese ships in a dangerous manner.
In the incident near the Sabina Shoal, the Philippine South China Sea task force said Chinese vessels rammed and used water cannons against a Philippine Bureau of Fisheries ship transporting food, fuel and medical supplies for Filipino fishermen.
China asserts sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea, including areas claimed by the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Brunei. Beijing has deployed an armada of vessels to protect its claims.
An international arbitral tribunal in 2016 ruled Beijing’s claim had no basis under international law, a landmark victory for the Philippines, which filed the case. Beijing rejects that decision.
Not only did the Philippines accuse the Chinese vessels of ramming and using water cannons “against a Philippine Bureau of Fisheries ship transporting food, fuel and medical supplies for Filipino fishermen,” the Chinese coast guard did do this thing. The Reuters reporters, Karen Lema in Manila and Antoni Slodkowsi in Beijing with editing by Kim Coghill and William Mallard, make the fact as clear as they can without actually reporting it as fact. It’s a special skill.
We cannot entirely blame the Reuters team of writers and editors for the lingo about “rebuilding trust,” since this kind of phony-baloney wording was apparently used by the diplomats themselves last month when the Philippines and China were announcing their phony-baloney, dead-on-arrival nonagreement to avoid getting involved in clashes: “The Philippines and China agreed to ‘restore trust’ and ‘rebuild confidence’ to manage maritime disputes in a high-level meeting last month.”
In any case, let us now retire any assumptions that the point of the alleged agreement was either to return to a state of mutual trust and confidence that had never been or to reach a state of brand-new and unprecedented mutual trust and confidence. The Chinese government never expected that it would now leave Philippine ships in peace, and the Philippine government did not expect this either. The latter was soon disabused of any faint hope to the contrary.
