By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Part One: A nation with many strange voices

Though technically equal to other cabinet members, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs is considered first among equals in a Cabinet, acknowledging  his unique seniority and broad national mandate in international relations and his advisory role to the President on foreign policy.

He is the primary voice and face of the nation on the global stage and assists the President in coordinating all national efforts in foreign affairs. A twin function requiring high status and courtesy.

What happens when a president slack in his responsibility as chief architect of foreign policy and put the Cabinet under him in auto pilot?

Our agenda in this new series is how we have become a nation that speaks with many voices, why other countries lose respect for us and how we miss a lot of opportunities to attract foreign influence towards alleviating the condition of many of our citizens.

View from Malta

Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro has again commented on foreign affairs matters, a province not within his responsibility and where in my opinion, he does not have any credibility and competence.

First, credibility. This person took an oath of allegiance to a foreign country knocking off his Filipino citizenship. While our country honors dual citizenships, he has not presented any document from the Bureau of  Immigration or any of our embassies abroad, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.

Running for a national public office a few years ago and having been appointed by President Marcos to the Cabinet, all he asserts is that he has submitted an affidavit to the Comelec and the Commission on Appointments, but he has not also made public any certification by the Maltese government pertaining to any renunciation of his citizenship. 

The burden of proof is upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies. Since public office is a public trust, the proof must be made in public, not behind closed doors.

This is a matter of urgent national security, as we could have a possible foreigner running our national defense in sensitive matters aggressively involving the European Union of which Malta is a member. The parties we have had substantial engagements with are Germany, Lithuania, France, United Kingdom, Sweden and the European Union itself.

Second, his being a lawyer and a bar topnotcher, is not a guarantee that he is competent when it comes to international law.

Last December 31, Teodoro issued an official statement that the “Department of National Defense is deeply concerned by China’s military and coast guard actions around Taiwan that undermine regional peace and stability, further creating cracks in an already fragile geopolitical environment.”

Teodoro’s allegation, however, that the rule of international law must not be distorted proves his incompetence because he is the one distorting it.

Multilaterally, the United Nations General Assembly in its Resolution 2758 adopted on October 25, 1971, officially recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations, expelling Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek and confirming the PRC as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

It appears that Teodoro’s European bias is misguiding his reading of this fact. While it is true that this can be interpreted subjectively depending on which foreign hat you are wearing, the Philippines is locked into a more definitive position, after all international law is primed primarily by international relations.

Bilaterally, four years after UN’s recognition of China on June 9, 1975, President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai signed in Beijing, the Joint Communiqué between the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) officially establishing full diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level. 

That communique was unequivocal, and could be understood by a Grade Five pupil of history:

“The Philippine Government recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, fully understands and respects the position of the Chinese Government that there is but one China and that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory…”

Therefore, by my widest stretch of imagination, I do not see how a Philippine defense secretary can deliberately ignore that Taiwan is an inalienable province of China, unless he is wearing bifocals that represent interests alien to the Philippine position.

Therefore, Taiwan is an internal affair of China. Unless we abrogate this treaty, a power that does not belong to him but the president of the Philippines, we must respect this red line.

Beijing’s response was less than what I expected. It may be due to the fact Chinese Ambassador Jing Quan is still acclimating to his recent assignment to Manila.

While China lodged “serious protests” with the Philippine side and firmly rejected “the wrongful statement”, of Teodoro about “implications that extend beyond cross-Strait relations and into the broader Indo-Pacific community”, it only admonished Philippine figures to abide by the One China policy of the UN and our bilateral treaty commitments, cease interfering in China’s internal affairs, and stop aiding and abetting separatism for Taiwan independence.

“We should not ignore that the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is Taiwan independence forces’ separatist activities, and external support for these activities,” the Embassy said.

Finally, Teodoro’s color, is betrayed by the last paragraph of his statement reaffirming “support for a free, open, stable, and rules-based Indo Pacific…”

In praxis, to best describe rules-based order, let me borrow from an editorial published by the Cambridge University Press last February 2023, clarifying that rules-based order (RBO) is not international law, per se:

“RBO is an alternative regime outside the discipline of international law which inevitably challenges and {in fact] threatens international law… it may be seen as a competing order which seeks to impose the interpretation of international law that best advances the interests of the West, particularly those of the United States to ensure its dominance.”

Teodoro’s claim that RBO is “where differences are resolved through peaceful means without deception, coercion, or intimidation,” is also horse pucky.

The Cambridge editorial explained: “It is the will of the United States and its western allies that it applies often in contravention of international law. It is incompatible to peaceful resolution of disputes, as the West enforces RBO by force to the extent of hot war, onerous sanctions as in trade wars and blackmail reciprocities.”

Of late, Donald Trump using RBO as justification, has ordered the bombing of Somalia (February 2), Iraq (March 13), Yemen (March 15 and May 6), Iran (June 22), Syria (December 19), Nigeria (December 25) and Venezuela (January 3) since he took over last January 2025, without UN authorization and Congressional declaration, respectively in violation of international law and Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unless Teodoro corrects his path, he might not only be suspected to be a Maltese dog, but and American puppy.

Unschooled senate

Another ignoramus has enrolled in the Taiwan cum South China Sea debates.

Senator Francis Pangilinan said he respects the One-China Policy, but Beijing should respect the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone by dropping its claims over the area and most parts of the South China Sea.

Mr. Sharon Cuneta, mag-Google ka na lang. Here, I asked for AI assistance to clear your convoluted mind.

In logic, this is a classic example of apple versus oranges twisted reasoning which is actually a false analogy or a false equivalence. The logical fallacy becomes shitty when items are compared as if they are similar when they are fundamentally incomparable in the relevant context. 

The phrase is typically used as a rhetorical device to point out when a person is making an unfair or unproductive comparison. 

• Flawed Premise: The error lies in assuming that a shared, superficial trait makes two subjects equivalent in magnitude or function, ignoring other crucial differences.
• Irrelevant Context: The context of the comparison is key. Comparing an apple and an orange based on which would make better apple cider is a nonsensical comparison because an orange cannot be made into apple cider.
• Misleading Conclusion: The result of such a comparison is a misleading or invalid conclusion because unaccounted variables or inherent differences skew the outcome.

I have already explained the legitimacy of the One-China policy, on both multilateral and bilateral applications to the Philippine law. I am happy Pangilinan  agrees.

But I dropped my jaw when the senator asked for a reciprocal respect for the Philippines’ expansive claim to its EEZ, which west of our archipelago has no basis in domestic and international law.

In the 1975 Joint Communique, whereas China has recognized the sovereignty of the Philippines, and the “two agree to respect each other’s territorial integrity”, the Philippines EEZ is not Philippine territory, and neither is it exclusive because it is disputed on the western side by other countries, one of which is China.

China’s statement that “both China and the Philippines have a right to claim EEZs” is acknowledging an UNCLOS provision that does not automatically becomes effective when subjected to a contest. This is why UNCLOS also stipulated accepted norms of settlement of disputes. Until finally resolved between or among parties, the 2002 Declaration of Conduct guides China, the claimant states and ASEAN nations on the accepted behavior within the South China Seas.

Both Teodoro and Pangilinan are lawyers, but they are lazy. I doubt if they have even read and studied UNCLOS and the 2016 Arbitral Award, page by page.

Of course, people like these two, will earn accolades from another ignoramus, Commodore Jay Tarriela

Apples and oranges? Om gee, rotten apples

that are even starting to look alike!

An Impact Leadership post, paraphrased Pangilinan’s January 1 statement on China’s blockade and armed exercises around Taiwan saying peace cannot be built on threats of invasion, military expansion, or war games, stressing that lasting peace must be anchored on self-determination and freedom from bullying by any power.

The senator  added that global cooperation on social justice, climate action, and democratic rights—not missiles or “alliances of convenience”—should define the region’s future.”

Pangilinan might not be conscious of it, but his motherhood statement could be more applicable to the Trump’s bombing of Venezuela and six other countries, while his “alliances of convenience” our obsolete Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States.

Conclusion

A sober presidency must not default on his being the chief architect of our foreign policy and not waste on Teodoro, Pangilinan and Tarriela whatever residual goodwill he still has remaining in the world stage.

Marcos should also walk on eggshells about China these days, as the new Chinese ambassador seems predisposed to challenging every reckless statement coming out of our failing government and its gutter diplomacy.

The Chinese Embassy in Manila slammed Philippine Ambassador to Czech Republic Eduardo Martin Meñez for describing China as “not a benign, cuddly panda but a calculating and very well-coordinated security-conscious entity.”

Besides giving insights on Philippine-Czech relations, Meñez turned the Philippines’ position in the Indo-Pacific and its ongoing security concerns, particularly in relation to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, sarcastically to wit: “Credits to [its] security analysts, advisors, and others — they are working in concert, really, to ensure that the country (China) dominates in the near future.”

PH ambassador Meñez makes a booboo remark during a discussion

on the security in the Indo-Pacific region in Prague last December 17.

Ambassador Jing said, “We categorically reject his narrative and will convey our concern to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Let me stress that the duty of a diplomat is to foster friendly ties between countries rather than vilify, sow discord and stoke confrontation.”

Domination is nowhere in China’s foreign policy principles, in contrast to the hegemonic and colonial ambitions of Western powers.

This is very relevant today, as the United States entered into another period of uncertainty with its bombing of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, in a redux of the fate of General Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989.

The Peoples Movement issued a meme announcing that Beijing “has just declared war. Not with missiles. But with lawyers.”

China’s Foreign Ministry did not simply issue a protest. It issued a statement of existential necessity to pursue international arbitration, and invoke bilateral investment treaties, taking this to every court from The Hague to Singapore and making the legal cost of American regime change so catastrophic that the next president [after Trump} thinks twice.

The United States has again turned world politics into another whirlwind just as the prospects of peace and stability have been rising in the horizon with Trump and Vladimir Putin seems to headed to ending the War in Ukraine, and the US President is expecting to visit Beijing in April.

Next Part:  Stupid Law spawns Fake Rights in Ghost Philippine Sea

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: