Footage Shows China Firing Water Cannon at US Ally Near Disputed Territory
The Philippines has released footage showing the Chinese coast guard deploying water cannons to drive away a fisheries bureau vessel operating within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone.
Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry via email for comment.
China claims the South China Sea as its territory, citing vague historic rights. Beijing has dismissed as invalid a 2016 decision by a Hague-based arbitral court that rejected these claims. Since 2023, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has pushed back against the growing presence of Chinese maritime forces within the country's exclusive economic zone.
This challenge has been met with Chinese blockades at disputed features and increasingly forceful measures, raising concerns that a miscalculation could trigger Manila's Mutual Defense Treaty with Washington and draw the United States into a conflict with China.
On Friday morning, four vessels from the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources arrived at Scarborough Shoal-a rich fishing ground-to distribute fuel subsidies to more than 20 local fishing boats, Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela wrote on X (formerly Twitter).
At around 10 a.m., Chinese coast guard ships moved in and began conducting "aggressive maneuvers," Tarriela said.
One Chinese vessel came within 16 yards of the Philippine ship BRP Datu Taradapit, about 18 miles southwest of Scarborough Shoal, carrying out blocking maneuvers and firing its water cannon, at one point striking the port quarter of the Philippine vessel, according to Tarriela.
Another Chinese coast guard cutter fired its water cannon at the BRP Datu Tamblot, another fisheries bureau vessel, about 20 miles southeast of the shoal, but did not strike the boat directly.
Tarriela said the Chinese ships monitored in the area included six coast guard vessels, two navy warships, and a number of ships belonging to the so-called Maritime Militia-paramilitary vessels that China describes as patriotic fishermen.
"Despite the unprofessional and illegal actions of the Chinese Coast Guard, which endangered Filipino crew members and fishermen, BFAR vessels remained resolute in their mission to protect local fishing boats," Tarriela said.
Chinese coast guard spokesperson Liu Dejun, in a statement, accused the Datu Taradapit of "approaching and intruding" into the waters around Scarborough Shoal and said the coast guard had taken "necessary measures" to drive it away.
"The Philippine side's actions have seriously violated China's sovereignty and violated international law and relevant provisions of Chinese law. The frequent provocations and nuisances by the Philippine side cannot change the fact that Scarborough Shoal belongs to China," he added.
Scarborough Shoal sits about 140 miles west of the Philippines' Luzon Island and nearly 700 miles from China's southernmost province of Hainan. The area is well within the Southeast Asian country's exclusive economic zone, which extends 230 miles from its coastal baselines.
The National Maritime Council, which operates under the Philippines' presidential office, in a statement: "These actions violate international law, specifically UNCLOS [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] and the 2016 arbitral ruling and jeopardize the safety of Philippine personnel and local fishing communities."
Bao Yinan, a maritime policy analyst, wrote for Chinese think tank the South China Sea Probing Initiative in an June 21 article: "Given that disputes between China and the Philippines in certain parts of the South China Sea in recent years have not been properly resolved, with periodic escalations occurring over the past two years, the likelihood of the two countries resolving their disputes through negotiation or judicial means in the short term appears minimal."
Neither China nor the Philippines has signaled any willingness to back down. Tensions remain high, though the intensity of confrontations has eased somewhat since a June 2024 clash that left one sailor injured.
Related Articles
Photos Show US Air Force Training for Pacific WarHow 'Groundbreaking' Chinese Satellite Compares With StarlinkHow Iran Could Close the Strait of HormuzChina's Assertive Patrols Alarm US Pacific Ally
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to international students
BOSTON - A federal judge on June 23 blocked the Trump administration from implementing its plan to bar foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard University. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued an injunction barring Trump's administration from carrying out its latest bid to curtail Harvard's ability to host international students amid an escalating fight pitting President Donald Trump against the prestigious Ivy League school. The preliminary injunction extends a temporary order the judge issued on June 5 that prevented the administration from enforcing a proclamation Trump signed a day earlier that cited national security concerns to justify why Harvard could no longer be trusted to host international students. The proclamation prohibited foreign nationals from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard or participate in exchange visitor programs for an initial period of six months, and directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider whether to revoke visas of international students already enrolled at Harvard. Burroughs wrote that "at its root, this case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism." "Here, the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights," she wrote. "To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students, with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." Trump-Harvard clash heats up. Here's what to know. Almost 6,800 international students attended Harvard in its most recent school year, making up about 27% of the student population of the prestigious Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school. Trump signed the proclamation after his administration had already frozen billions of dollars in funding to the oldest and wealthiest U.S. university, threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status, and launched several investigations into the school. Trump on June 20 said his administration could announce a deal with Harvard "over the next week or so" to resolve the White House's campaign against the university, which has waged a legal battle against the administration's action. Harvard alleges that Trump is retaliating against it in violation of its free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment for refusing to accede to the administration's demands to control the school's governance, curriculum, and the ideology of its faculty and students. Harvard, Trump administration legal battle The university has filed two separate lawsuits before Burroughs seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. The latter lawsuit was filed after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on May 22 announced that her department was immediately revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to enroll foreign students. Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party." Trump-Harvard feud: Trump says he wants 'names and countries' of all international students at Harvard Her action was temporarily blocked by Burroughs almost immediately. While the Department of Homeland Security has since shifted to challenging Harvard's certification through a months-long administrative process, Burroughs at a May 29 hearing said she planned to issue an injunction to maintain the status quo, which she did officially on June 20. A week after the hearing, Trump signed his proclamation, which cited concerns about Harvard's acceptance of foreign money, including from China, and what it said was an inadequate response by the school to his administration's demand for information on foreign students. His administration has accused Harvard of creating an unsafe environment for Jewish students and allowing antisemitism to fester on its campus. Protests over U.S. ally Israel's treatment of Palestinians during its war in Gaza have roiled numerous universities' campuses, including Harvard's. Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia in the U.S. due to the war. The Trump administration has thus far announced no action over anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate. Harvard's own antisemitism and Islamophobia task forces found widespread fear and bigotry at the university in reports released in late April. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Bill Berkrot and Lincoln Feast.)
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. In an action that prompted a sharp dissent from its three liberal justices, the court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. The Supreme Court's brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common when it decides emergency requests. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the two other liberal justices, called the decision a "gross abuse" of the court's power. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," Sotomayor wrote. Sotomayor called the court's action "as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." Murphy had found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. Murphy on May 21 found that Trump's administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned against any travel "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although American officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs, called the ramifications of the court's action "horrifying," stripping away "critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death." The administration told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. It said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. "The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said after Monday's decision. "Fire up the deportation planes," said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is one of many legal challenges to Trump policies to have reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants who Trump targeted for removal under the Alien Enemies Act - a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime - as inadequate under constitutional due process protections. Sotomayor said that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy. Sotomayor also pointed to the separate Alien Enemies Act litigation in which questions were raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. Reuters has also reported that U.S. officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
As an Historic Olympic Games Milestone Nears, the Architect of its Triumphant PR Campaign Reflects on its Lessons
Rally International Public Affair's Mike Holtzman Was Named "PR Professional of the Year" for His Role in China's 2008 Games Bid NEW YORK, June 23, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- When Beijing won the hosting rights for the 2008 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games on July 13, 2001, it was a pivotal moment not only for the Olympic movement but in China's development, signaling the country's growing stature and readiness to be a major global player. Mike Holtzman, the architect behind the unlikely international public relations campaign that propelled China's historic win, was named "PR Professional of the Year" by PR Week Magazine in recognition of his sophisticated, globe-trotting strategy to build a new bridge between China and the world. Today, Holtzman reflects on his game plan, and the long term-impact the Games have had on China, sport, and the world. "At the time, there was a significant debate about whether the west should engage or isolate China, which was operating largely outside of global institutions and norms," said Holtzman. "I had just spent some time as an Advisor to the US Trade Ambassador helping anchor China to the west by joining the World Trade Organization, and the feeling was that hosting the Olympic Games would throw open a window on China, get them further bound to the rule of law, and on the track to modernization." Holtzman, who now leads Rally International Public Affair's roster of international clients across the developing world, was a young executive with PR powerhouse Weber Shandwick when the Chinese, facing serious diplomatic headwinds to its nascent 2008 Olympic Games bid, came knocking. Beijing had lost a previous bid for the 2000 Games due to geopolitical factors. "The Olympic Games are not about politics, but friendship. Still, a nation's bid does not exist in a vacuum," Holtzman said. "There needed to be this undertone that hosting the Olympics would somehow change China for the better. This would give IOC voters and critics a reason to champion the Chinese bid. Paris (another 2008 competitor) would always be Paris, but a vote for China could change history." A team of professionals was assembled —including the global sport marketing team of Terrence Burns and George Hirthler, who were among the creative forces behind Atlanta's successful bid for the 1996 Games, plus sports branding specialist Jon Tibbs in the United Kingdom, to deliver this message of change to a skeptical global community. "China was the second most populous country in the world and had never carried the torch of the Games. Tens of millions of young Chinese had never been imbued with the values of Olympism," Holtzman said. "This made a very compelling case to the International Olympic Committee." When framed as an opportunity to spread and achieve the ideals of the Games and to modernize China, support for the bid grew, even among critics. "When the Dalai Lama and Luciano Pavarotti both jumped on board, we knew we had a winning message," Holtzman laughs. But what of the end game, where today's modernized China is now a global economic power and seen by some as a geopolitical competitor? "The Olympic movement did its job. The Games helped open China and allow the world in. They served as a catalyst for lasting change in Beijing's physical infrastructure and environmental sustainability. The question today, as it was then, is, 'what will you do with this newfound goodwill and clout? How will you use it?' And that is a question for others to answer." Media Contact:Julia@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Rally International Public Affairs
