The General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, proclaimed in 1970, that “states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state xxx”. This principle of international law was desecrated by Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Jing Quan, when he said “If we want to use force, we may easily win.”
We all know that an ambassador like him is the highest-ranking diplomatic representative sent by one sovereign state, China in this case, to another, the Philippines in this present circumstance. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Jing serves as the direct personal representative of Chinese President Xi Jin Ping. He represents solely the official policies and interests of China. His utterances are never expressing just his own personal views on state matters.
Jing was confident of the military superiority of China over the Philippines. A fleet comparison supplied by the internet showed that China has 477 warships, 61 submarines, three air craft carriers while we have 88 warships, no submarines, and no aircraft carriers. In the air force arsenal of China, there are 1,800+ fighter and attack jets and strategic bombers while we have 268 aircrafts consisting largely of light transport, utility helicopters, and a small fleet of fighter/attack planes. China has an active military personnel count of approximately 2,035,000 (with around 510,000 in reserve), while the Philippines has an active military force of about 150,000 to 160,000 (with around 130,000 to 131,000 in reserve).
The dictionary defines threat as a statement that suggests something harmful is going to happen. When Jing said “If we want to use force, we may easily win,” he was suggesting that harm will happen to the Philippines. The threat became unmistakably clear when viewed in the context that China wanted the Philippines to resort to bilateral discussions regarding events happening in the West Philippine Sea instead of our continued protest against their incursions into our Exclusive Economic Zone. His usage of the conditional word IF was but a diplomatic cover to the Chinese promise of harm to our country. Since he is the official representation of the policies of China, his statement fell squarely under the 1970 UN General Assembly quoted in the first sentence of this article.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. immediately reacted to the statement. Our president was correct! He felt the violation done by the ambassador saying that it sounded “very much like a threat and it was not a very diplomatic statement to be made”. Jing, even if he wears the ambassadorial tag, is only a guest of the Philippines. He doesn’t have the slightest reason to threaten his host. His threatening language is the worst undiplomatic lingo that has no place in international relations. His abusive pronouncement breaches our dignity.
Let’s put his veiled threat in proper context. The Right of Legation which is a right of a state to send diplomatic missions to other states is recognized in international law. But while this right is acknowledged to be fundamental, it isn’t automatic. No state can be compelled to establish diplomatic relations with another state. Apropos, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations governs the conduct of diplomats like Jing. While he enjoys diplomatic privileges, he definitely isn’t privileged to threaten our country with harm. Jing must be declared persona non grata. Persona non grata is a Latin phrase that means an "unwelcome person". That’s our right in international law. Under Article 9 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a host country, like the Philippines, can declare any foreign diplomat like Jing persona non grata at any time without needing to explain why. Then, we have to ask Chinese authorities to remove him from the Philippines and repatriate him to Communist China.