MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines is asserting that there was “no reason” to interpret the actions of the Chinese coast guard on June 17 – which included ramming a Philippine government ship, brandishing machetes and knives, and taking disassembled rifles – as an “armed attack” on Philippine military personnel.

“There is no reason na i-interpret natin ito na this is an armed attack dahil ang intention lamang ng China dito is (to interpret this as an armed attack because China’s only intention here was)…to prevent the resupply from being successful,” said Commodore Jay Tarriela, spokesperson for the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea (NTF-WPS).

“Our objective is to resupply. The Chinese objective is to prevent the resupply from happening. That is the only thing that has happened there. Walang intention ang sinumang bansa na magkaroon ng malawakang armed aggression sa insidente (No country intended for the incident to cause widespread armed aggression),” Tarriela told the media in a forum on Saturday, June 22.

He also cautioned the public from thinking that the incident would spark a “big war.”

A day before, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, who also chairs the National Maritime Council, also said that the Philippines is “not yet ready to classify this as an armed attack.”

“What we saw were some bolos, axe. Nothing beyond that,” Bersamin said in a press conference on Friday, June 21. He also said that it was “probably a misunderstanding or an accident.”

Footage of the June 17 incident, released by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, showed Chinese coast guard personnel ramming Philippine ships, using tear gas against Filipino soldiers, puncturing the tube of a rigid hull inflatable boat, and destroying its navigation and communication equipment. During the confrontation, one Filipino soldier had his thumb cut off after it got caught between Philippine and Chinese boats.

Although the incident might not be considered an “armed attack,” Tarriela said that the Philippines still condemns what Chinese forces did.

“We should not interpret this as something na (that) we don’t consider as barbaric and inhumane action on the part of the Chinese coast guard. We still condemn these actions that they did on our troops,” the NTF-WPS spokesperson said.

What are the implications of an ‘armed attack?’

In order to invoke the Mutual Defense Treaty with treaty-ally the United States, an “armed attack” should happen against the Philippines.

For University of the Philippines law professor and maritime law expert Jay Batongbacal, classifying the incident as a “misunderstanding” leaves space for diplomacy.

“The intention there is to essentially treat that incident as being on the same level as a misunderstanding or an accident. And that would be useful to give space for deliberate effort to seek a diplomatic and peaceful solution,” Batongbacal said in the same media forum on Saturday.

Tarriela would later repeat the same sentiment, saying: “Huwag natin sabihin na armed attack ito. Huwag natin i-interpret ito na something that would trigger the Mutual Defense Treaty, na something na mas magkakaroon ng mas malaking kaguluhan.”

(Let’s not call this an armed attack. Let’s not interpret this as something that would trigger the Mutual Defense Treaty, that would cause a bigger issue.) – Rappler.com