DEFENSE Secretary Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro Jr.’s recent call for so-called pro-China public officials to resign deserves serious reflection. It is a statement that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. In a democracy, public officials are free to disagree on the best way to protect the country’s interests. They should not be made to feel that a different view of foreign policy is proof of disloyalty.
The first question is simple. What does pro-China mean?
If it refers to officials secretly working for Beijing or placing China’s interests above those of the Philippines, then there is no debate. Such conduct has no place in government and should be dealt with according to law.
But if pro-China is simply a label for officials who believe that diplomacy and engagement are better than constant confrontation, then the term has lost all meaning. Foreign policy is not a religion. There is more than one way to defend the national interest.
What dimensions are there historically, economically, in terms of national sovereignty, the future and alternatives, measured behaviors of the different participants in this arena. How reliable are our different assumptions and allies’ positions of different parties? Did we account for possibilities of errors and their values, our flexibilities?
The timing of Teodoro’s remarks is also worth noting. They came only a short time after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. met with Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan following another incident in the South China Sea. After that meeting, the president spoke of resetting relations with China. That was a welcome signal that diplomacy remains an important part of Philippine foreign policy.
It is, therefore, fair to ask whether Teodoro’s remarks support the president’s effort or make it more difficult. It is possible that both men are simply placing emphasis on different parts of the same policy. It is also possible that there are different views within the administration on how relations with China should be managed. Only time will tell.
Another question that should be asked is: “Has the confrontational approach produced the results that Teodoro, Philippine Coast Guard spokesman Jay Tarriela, and other supporters promised?” Have they produced better overall net outcomes after assessing the many dimensions of Filipino life, will they produce better for more people, the country over time?
The Philippines continues to face incidents at sea. Diplomatic protests continue. Tension remains high. If the strategy has not produced better results, then surely there is room for serious discussion on whether greater diplomatic engagement should also be given a chance. Asking that question does not make one less patriotic. It simply reflects willingness to examine whether a different approach might better serve the national interest.
There is irony in Teodoro’s remarks. Having himself placed public questions about his citizenship earlier in his stint as Marcos’ defense chief, one might have expected him to appreciate the importance of avoiding labels that cast doubt on another public official’s loyalty without clear evidence. In a democracy, disagreement over foreign policy should never be mistaken for divided allegiance.
Quickly echoing Teodoro’s call is Tarriela. This is quite unfortunate. As a public official who has himself experienced early controversy should be especially careful before questioning the commitment of others to the national interest. Such accusations demand evidence, not slogans.
What is even more troubling is the tone of these statements. They carry an air of arrogance and condescension. They give the impression that only one group has the right to define patriotism while everyone else must either agree or step aside. That is not how democracy works. No Cabinet secretary, military officer, or government spokesman has a monopoly on patriotism.
Our country has faced difficult foreign policy choices before. Different administrations have chosen different paths. Some relied on diplomacy, others relied more on alliances, while others tried to balance both. None of these approaches should be treated as proof of loyalty or disloyalty. They are policy choices that should be judged by their results.
The real danger in statements like these is that they discourage honest debate. Public officials may hesitate to express different views for fear of being branded as pro-China. That is unhealthy for any democracy. Good policy comes from open discussion, not from demanding that everyone think alike.
The country needs leaders who are willing to listen as much as they are willing to speak. A country’s interests are best served when ideas compete freely and are judged on their merits. Patriotism is shown by faithful service to the people, not by repeating a single approved foreign policy line. That is the standard that should guide every public official, regardless of where they stand on the question of China.
Rafael P. Tuvera is a lawyer who taught law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics and diplomatic strategy with an emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context.
