MUCH of the Filipino public, including the highest echelons of government, took umbrage at the remarks the Chinese ambassador made at a recent media briefing: “The Philippines is fortunate to have a neighbor like China. If we want to use force, we may easily win. We will not use force. We love peace.”
No less than the president of the country and the Department of Foreign Affairs found the remarks unacceptable. Legislators called for the declaration of the diplomat as persona non grata and his expulsion from the country. But preferring diplomacy and dialogue at the current level of interaction to the degradation of relations that declaring the diplomat in question persona non grata might lead to, the executive branch has not heeded the resolutions passed by members of Congress on the matter and contented itself by summoning the ambassador and conveying in no uncertain terms what it thought of his remarks.
It is quite likely that China would take the side of its ambassador and retaliate by declaring our innocent ambassador in Beijing persona non grata. The remarks of the Chinese ambassador sounded to many Filipinos like “a veiled threat.” They only do reflect the bullying attitude China has shown in the South China Sea. The remarks contradict what has been actually happening in the South China Sea. How else does one call attacks on Philippine vessels by the China Coast Guard, Navy or militia with a water cannon and ramming these vessels other than the use of force?
If the Chinese truly love peace, they would abide by the United Nations Charter of solving disputes by peaceful means. They would have followed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on disputes settlement. They would have considered as settled the dispute it has with the Philippines by the conclusions of the arbitral tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Our two countries could have lived as neighbors enjoying reasonable measures of common prosperity and security.
It is the Philippines, rather than China, that has shown a real love of peace. It has faced the bullying of China in the South China Sea with restraint, with no loss of faith in diplomacy. The Philippines has a Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States, but it has not yet to date involved the agreement despite the more than occasional Chinese attacks on Philippine vessels in the South China Sea.
But there is a red line; the loss of one life will entail the treaty being invoked, and the years of keeping the forces of the two countries operable will be validated. If China has not attacked the Philippines, it is not for love of peace, it is the deterrent effect of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the two countries.
The cockiness of the ambassador may owe to the fact that China has now the second most numerous armed forces in the world. But current events such as the Ukraine-Russia war have shown that one cannot be sure of the outcome of a battle by simply counting the number of armed forces involved in any side. There was one instance in modern history where a few hundred Filipinos faced thousands of Chinese forces and prevailed.
There is a hint of condescension in the ambassador’s remarks. It may be due to ignorance of the history of the Filipino people. Filipinos are a brave, sovereignty-loving people. Combined, the Filipino and US forces would be a force to contend with. By themselves, Filipinos are a formidable force. Gen. Douglas MacArthur once said that given a few Filipino soldiers, he could conquer the world. MacArthur said this after the Battle of Yulong during the Korean War. Nine hundred Filipino soldiers fought 40,000 Chinese soldiers to rescue a battalion of Americans; the Filipinos lost some 15 soldiers, the Chinese lost hundreds.
The Chinese ambassador may be less than a well-seasoned diplomat. It is his first ambassadorial assignment. Apparently, he has to develop a greater sensitivity to the sensibilities of other peoples. Maybe he never will. He betrays his originating from an autocratic country with an opaque system of governance. He has complained of the media, politicians and the public discussing, criticizing, hyping China’s relations with the Philippines.
He was last posted in the US. But this was during the first and second presidency of Donald Trump. He might have imbibed Trump’s narcissistic hostility to people who criticize him or simply do not like. The good Chinese ambassador recommended that the politicians who had asked that he be declared persona non grata be placed in some kind of list, most probably as individuals to be refused visas.
He may have noted Trump’s propensity to treat allies and enemies alike, to break treaty commitments. To Trump’s credit, it was during his first presidency that the US based its policy on the South China Sea on the arbitral award to the Philippines. Despite the claim of some people that he has acquired dementia, he has not shown any wavering in keeping the strength of the alliance between the US and the Philippines.
