By Rafael P. Tuvera

 

DIPLOMACY is not a sign of weakness, but a method by which states prevent disputes from turning into disasters. It is also like an art that refines the landscape of international relations and eases the mind by imposing restraint, balance and proportion. When diplomacy is practiced, disputes remain contained. When it is abandoned, noise and escalation take its place.

The Philippines has drifted away from this discipline. Lately, a number of officials in both the executive and legislative branches are openly and repeatedly bashing China in public forums. Foreign policy has been reduced to press statements and sound bites. This conduct reflects not resolve, but a lack of sophistication in diplomacy and international relations.

Personal attacks do not clarify disputes. Instead, they harden positions and foreclose options. Once a dispute is framed in moral absolutes and personal terms, compromise becomes politically toxic and officials become bound by their own rhetoric. Even when negotiation is plainly in the national interest, restraint is regarded as surrender. This is how disputes are aggravated rather than resolved.

History provides a stark contrast. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The rhetoric was severe, and the stakes were existential. Despite this, however, the leaders involved avoided street-level name-calling and public humiliation. The crisis was resolved not through speeches or bravado, but through backroom diplomacy, quiet concessions and an understanding of the limits. The lesson it provided was clear. Even the greatest disputes are settled through discretion, not insult and public bashing.

Today, there is a complete absence of adults in the room. No institutional voice has moved to lower the temperature. The Department of Foreign Affairs has issued no public reminder urging restraint or discipline among officials who speak recklessly on the issue.

Even Malacañang has declined to censure Commo. Jay Tarriela, spokesman for the Philippine Coast Guard, who has acted as though he exercises full reign over the country’s foreign policy. Silence from those charged with oversight has allowed noise to pass for policy. This is not leadership. It is acquiescence.

The consequences are already apparent. Within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), the Philippines has failed to secure open and sustained support for its position. Other member states have declined to take sides. This should not be mistaken for indifference, but a rational response to a confrontational posture that runs counter to Asean norms of consensus and restraint. A state that insists on escalation should expect distance, not solidarity.

The Philippines has increasingly become isolated in its own region. This isolation is not imposed, but self-inflicted. Any trial lawyer understands this pattern. When the law and the facts are strong, counsel argues calmly. But when the case is weak, counsel raises his voice and bangs on the table. Volume substitutes for substance. In foreign policy, the same rule applies.

Recent global events reinforce this reality. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 20, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned of the accelerating decline of a United States imposed financial and political system. French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized the necessity of engagement with China and the preservation of diplomatic channels. These were not statements of weakness. They were acknowledgments of geopolitical fact. Even major powers recognize that isolation and norm breaking diminish leverage. Smaller states have even less room for error.

The Philippines has further narrowed its options by refusing to pursue a genuinely independent foreign policy outside the American ambit. This rigidity has excluded the country from emerging economic conversations and groupings involving rising economies, such as the Brics nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). While others choose to diversify partnerships and reduce risk, the Philippines presents itself as predictable and dependent.

None of the noise generated by the public bashing will alter realities in the disputed maritime area. China will maintain its presence, regardless of press conferences or social media “likes.” Loud rhetoric does not change facts on the waters. It only reduces diplomatic space and increases the risk of miscalculation.

Disputes are not resolved by shouting. They are resolved by adults who understand leverage, restraint and timing. Diplomacy is not theater. It is a discipline. If the country intends to protect its interests, it must abandon aggression and return to the diplomatic table with China. The cost of table-banging diplomacy is one that the Philippines cannot afford.

Rafael P. Tuvera is a lawyer who taught law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics, diplomatic strategy with emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context. He is also a contributor to IDSI and other publications.

Originally published in The Manila Times, NEW WORLD (The IDSI Corner)

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

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

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: