DFA: De-escalation or capitulation?

Leading up to the Philippines’ hosting of the ASEAN Summit this week, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)’s call for “de-escalation” in the West Philippine Sea has raised troubling questions. Particularly concerning is its rebuke of Philippine government officials for their statements on China, which it described as “regrettable.”

How convenient that the DFA’s recent pronouncements have found common ground with the troll Chinese embassy and its cabal of Tsinadors, a shared message of appeasement and capitulation.

First, what more does the Philippines have to de-escalate when it is the one being bullied, harassed, attacked and intruded upon in its own waters? Our words against China? When words are among the few weapons left at our disposal against blatant foreign aggression and invasion, are we now expected to surrender even those?

Second, was the DFA’s call for de-escalation really about easing tensions in our waters, or were they diplomatic contortions to appease Beijing and sweeten the diplomatic atmosphere in the hope of getting Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the ASEAN Summit and for China to finally agree to a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea?

Apparently, there was hope that Xi would personally attend the ASEAN Summit, making it a historic occasion under President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. After all, no Chinese president has attended an ASEAN Summit in person since Jiang Zemin did so in 1997. But Xi is not coming. So much for the historic photo opportunity.

The DFA had also hoped to conclude the so-called Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea during the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship. The agreement, being negotiated between China and ASEAN’s member-states, is supposed to establish rules governing conduct in disputed waters. Yet this process is taking place against the backdrop of China’s continuing illegal presence and occupation in maritime territories in the region.

Well, that ambition, too, appears to be slipping away. The DFA itself admitted that negotiations are only 70 percent complete, with no assurance of when the remaining 30 percent will be settled.

Curiously, what exactly does that 70 percent represent? Which issues have already been settled, and which remain contentious? More importantly, what is in the remaining 30 percent that continues to hold up negotiations? Is it merely a matter of ironing out the details, or are we looking at some very dangerous compromises? Or is China itself the unresolved 30 percent?

The DFA insisted that the COC will remain faithful to the historic 2016 arbitral ruling in The Hague. But seriously, why would China agree to a Code of Conduct that upholds a ruling it has consistently rejected and refused to recognize? Are we negotiating an agreement with China, or negotiating with our own wishful thinking?

Now that Xi’s attendance at the ASEAN Summit is off the table and the COC remains unfinished, one has to wonder whether all of DFA’s diplomatic tiptoeing around Beijing was worth it.

After all the diplomatic gymnastics and bending-over-backwards statements, which give the impression that we are more concerned about offending Beijing than confronting its aggression, what exactly did the DFA accomplish from its unusually emphatic calls for restraint and its censure of our own officials for speaking out against China?

The DFA’s recent statements are deeply concerning. It virtually asks everyone to shut up, asserting that the President is the chief architect of Philippine foreign policy and that everyone is expected to follow his policy pronouncements and the policies set by his foreign affairs team.

Sure. The President is the chief architect of our foreign policy, and the DFA is its principal implementing agency. But implementing foreign policy does not mean owning the national conversation about it. Since when did defending our sovereignty become the exclusive domain of career diplomats?

Foreign affairs is a matter of public concern because our territory, sovereignty, security and national future are at stake. It is only right that everyone takes an active interest, from government officials and legislators to civil society and ordinary citizens. We do not all have to share the same opinions to stand united in defending our country.

If anything, the DFA should welcome the fact that so many Filipinos, including government officials, are willing to speak out and stand up against China’s bullying and aggression in the West Philippine Sea. This is not an obstacle to diplomacy. Our national position should not be weakened by the diversity of voices defending it.

It also strengthens the President’s hand. Broad public support for the defense of our sovereignty gives his foreign policy greater leverage, weight and democratic legitimacy.

The DFA’s remarks do little to advance our national interest. It is only China that stands to benefit. While China is busy harassing and intimidating our country, the DFA seems equally busy discouraging Filipinos from raising their voices. If anyone deserves a dressing-down, it is not Filipinos defending their own country, but China, which continues to intrude into our waters and harass our fisherfolk and frontliners.

If Beijing is irritated by the noise of our democracy, that is its problem. But if the DFA itself seems intent on muzzling fellow Filipinos, that is an entirely different matter.

What this country needs is not a de-escalation of its voice while a foreign aggressor continues to escalate its aggression. What we need are more Filipinos, including government officials, willing to speak up, take an interest and stand their ground in defense of our sovereignty. And what we need is a DFA that reminds China that the Philippines will not be intimidated, instead of lecturing Filipinos to keep their voices down.