Glossing over rules and courtesies

The Chinese Embassy in Manila recently issued a statement that publicized the so-called “temporary special arrangement” supposedly agreed to during a visit to Beijing by then President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016. This claim by the Chinese Embassy was immediately denounced by Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro Jr., who called out the embassy for its use of misinformation to distract from the main issues confronting the region.

By now, some people might have gotten used to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) gaslighting ways. In the context of China's claims over the South China Sea, gaslighting involves intentionally glossing over contrary international legal rulings and the objections of other countries in the region. This includes denying well-documented facts and rejecting, without any effort to provide a convincing argument, the validity of the 2016 Arbitral Ruling that invalidated China’s sweeping claims over the South China Sea.

It has become clear that China’s diplomatic and communication strategy on this issue is to continually deny legal precedents and insist on its own so-called historical claims at every opportunity. This approach aims to create distraction and confusion, ultimately leading the international community to question the legitimacy of international law and the rights of other nations.

Thus, it must be emphatically stated that in 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled against China’s claims in the South China Sea, stating they had no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In any case, we should not be too offended by China’s audacity, to put it mildly. What actually disturbs me is the extent of China’s desperation to change the narrative, to the point where it often forgets the protocols and established decorum in international affairs. Usually, when a country makes a statement that another country might find offensive, such a statement would come directly from the foreign affairs spokesperson of the issuing country, not through its embassy located in the country that is offended.

This is similar to what I read in the paper a few months ago. It was a statement from the consulate of the PRC which criticized this paper for its editorial commenting on Taiwan-related issues. The consulate could have couched its disagreement with this paper’s editorial in diplomatic language and still made its point, but courtesy was abandoned in the consulate general’s letter to the editor, which called the editorial “totally ignorant”.

Even seething irritation could not justify such a lack of courtesy from a diplomatic office who, despite enjoying personal immunities, cavalierly uses the free speech environment of their host country to condemn its press --yes, the consulate general explicitly used the word “condemn”. How would the PRC react if our own diplomats, whom they are hosting, made similar statements to their citizens, particularly condemning their press for making ignorant statements about Philippine sovereignty and exclusive economic rights claims?

Envoys or diplomats, by legal precedents and tradition, have always been regarded as inviolable. They cannot be sued, molested, or harassed in any way, and the most that can be done to them by a host country they might displease is to demand their replacement. In return, they should at least act with courtesy.

Given this long-held tradition in international relations, it is unfortunate that China has discarded all pretenses and diplomatic gloves. If armed conflict over territorial and exclusive economic rights claims in the Indo-Pacific region becomes inevitable --a situation for which we should be prepared-- at least the last to be abandoned should be basic courtesy and diplomatic niceties.