Our relations with China

In March 2011, I wrote about the imperatives to focus on our relations with China:

“The challenge for the Philippines with regard to China is to move forward, not out of irrational fear, but with a clear idea of our interests and full knowledge that our actions define our future relations. One thing is clear – China will have a lot of say in our economic future and on peace and security in the region. There is no question therefore that China should now take the top priority in our foreign policy agenda. But that is a long way from saying that consideration alone of China’s influence on Philippine economic and security interests now and into the future should shape that agenda.  

“One of the major considerations is the long-standing, historic and treaty-based partnership with the United States that the Philippines has. Together with Japan and Korea, we are the only Asian countries to have a mutual defense partnership with the US. We should be smart enough to leverage our unique situation so that China’s attitude towards the Philippines takes into account our country’s special relationship with the United States, which as of today is the world’s only superpower. Our foreign policy agenda should be able to reconcile China’s growing influence on our economic well-being and the security of the region with our historic and still significant economic and security relations with the US.  

“The South China Sea issue will be a defining moment towards this end.  For the Philippines, this is an issue of such great confluence that it cannot stand idly by, for fear of offending China.

“In this regard, the Philippines must be more aware of the willingness of the US to play a more meaningful, although non-confrontational role  in the South China Sea issue. 

“When the US talks of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, the Philippines must take notice.  Freedom of navigation, rights of passage, and interpretations of customary international law, is an issue of responsibility for the littoral states. The Philippines sits astride one of the world’s most strategic sea lanes. It has a responsibility to make sure that these sea lanes are kept open.  Imagine what the world would be like had passage to the Straits of Malacca or the Straits of Hormuz been subject to the whims and caprices of the states that bound these waters.

“Beijing has opposed ‘internationalizing’ the issues in the sea, claiming these are questions of sovereign rights. But rights of passage and freedom of navigation are not bilateral issues. They are public goods that touch the rights and interests even of non-claimants.  How China handles this will, for many observers, test the assumptions of what ‘peaceful rise’ really is. 

“There is no question that the Philippines must engage China.  Such a relationship holds many potential benefits for our country.  However, this cannot be to the diminution or exclusion of our relations with the US.  That would be foolhardy. And yet it seems we have taken these relations for granted and tilted the balance towards what is fashionable now – currying China’s affection. But as we have seen from how the South China Sea issue is evolving, China’s own interest does not necessarily conform to ours. The time is now to craft a foreign policy agenda that balances these competing interests and influences to serve the national good.”

I chose to delete the following in my March 2011 column: “The coming on board of Albert del Rosario as the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs provides the opportunity to do so. Secretary del Rosario brings with him the no nonsense approach of a businessman tempered by a realist’s view of the world – and our place in it - shaped by his years as our country’s ambassador to the United States. By all accounts he excelled in his job.”    

Albert del Rosario

Five years later, to be precise on March 7, Secretary Del Rosario has resigned from the DFA. The tributes accorded him at the Makati Business Club-led joint business conference, as well as the many columns praising him, clearly indicate that my initial assessment of his competence was correct. His performance in focusing on China relations deserves our highest commendation, but that is not his only accomplishment. Personally, I would rank as one of his most outstanding accomplishments: his faith in the Foreign Service staff. For the record, the ratio of career ambassadors far outweighs that of political appointments. I will not elaborate further on his performance because others have done so. One last point, he has a trait not common in our government, he is not only competent, but incorruptible. As one experienced in DFA because of my own stint in the department, I would give him a performance rating of “1” which means he exceeded the requirements of the position at all times.