EDITOR’S NOTE | When diplomacy becomes intimidation

Diplomacy is supposed to prevent tensions from becoming confrontation. It should create space for dialogue, mutual respect and peaceful resolution, particularly between countries with complex and sometimes competing interests. It ceases to serve that purpose when a diplomat tells his host country that his nation could “easily win” if it chose to use force.

That is precisely what Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Jing Quan said when he declared: “If we want to use force, we may easily win. But no, we will not choose force and we love peace.”

The contradiction is difficult to ignore. A declaration of peace does not become reassuring when it is preceded by a reminder of how easily one’s country could defeat the other.

This is where diplomacy becomes intimidation.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was right to say the remark “sounds very much like a threat” and is not a diplomatic statement. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) likewise described Jing’s choice of words as appearing to convey a “thinly veiled threat of the use of force” and cautioned diplomats in the Philippines to exercise greater care in their public statements.

THEPHILBIZNEWS commends the President and the DFA for responding firmly while keeping the matter within the bounds of diplomacy. The Armed Forces of the Philippines likewise made clear that such statements only reinforce the question of who is contributing to tensions in the region. Lawmakers have also rightly described the remarks as undiplomatic, uncalled for and intimidating, with some demanding an apology and others calling for the envoy’s departure.

An ambassador has a responsibility to protect and strengthen relations between his country and his host country, where he is received as a guest and accorded the respect and courtesies expected of a diplomat. This is particularly significant in the Philippines, a country known for its hospitality and its tradition of welcoming foreign guests with respect and goodwill.

He is therefore not expected to remind his hosts that his country possesses overwhelming military power. If Beijing genuinely wants peaceful relations with Manila, its representatives should demonstrate that commitment through responsible diplomacy, mutual respect and conduct appropriate to a guest in a sovereign and hospitable country, rather than through statements that invoke the possibility of military force.

There is also a reason Filipinos are particularly sensitive to this kind of rhetoric. The country has already experienced a period when its relationship with Beijing became unusually accommodating during the Duterte administration, while the presence of Chinese nationals associated with the rapid expansion of the POGO industry became highly visible.

But this needs to be stated clearly: the issue is not ethnicity. It is conduct.

Chinese-Filipinos and Filipino-Chinese have been part of Philippine society for generations. They have built businesses, raised families, contributed to communities and lived alongside fellow Filipinos in peaceful coexistence. Many consider the Philippines their home and have a deep affection for the country. Their Chinese ancestry should never be confused with the conduct of foreign nationals who happen to share their ethnicity.

Indeed, many Chinese-Filipinos and Filipino-Chinese have every reason to be embarrassed when the actions of some foreign nationals are perceived to reflect badly on people of Chinese heritage. They should not have to answer for the behavior of individuals who come to the Philippines without showing the same respect for Philippine laws, customs and people that the Chinese-Filipino community has demonstrated through generations of peaceful coexistence.

During the POGO boom, there were complaints about the behavior of some Chinese nationals in public places and in services such as ride-hailing vehicles. TNVS drivers, for example, publicly recounted experiences involving passengers who allegedly smoked inside vehicles, spat, put their feet on dashboards or behaved disrespectfully toward drivers. These accounts should not be generalized to Chinese nationals as a whole, but neither should legitimate complaints about individual conduct be dismissed simply because they involve foreign nationals.

The larger issue was whether Philippine authorities were prepared to enforce Philippine laws equally and whether foreign nationals were expected to respect the country that welcomed them.

That perception was further complicated by the Duterte administration’s unusually accommodating language toward Beijing.

President Rodrigo Duterte famously dismissed the Philippines’ 2016 arbitral victory as “just a piece of paper.” He also made remarks suggesting that the Philippines could become a province of China, statements that drew criticism because they touched directly on Philippine sovereignty.

It is worth remembering this history because diplomacy is not conducted in a vacuum. The words and actions of governments and their representatives shape how ordinary Filipinos perceive bilateral relations.

And Filipinos know the difference between friendship and submission.

The Philippines does not seek war with China. It does not need an ambassador to remind Filipinos that China is militarily stronger. Filipinos already know that.

What Filipinos also know is that military superiority does not automatically determine courage, resolve or history.

Consider the Battle of Yultong in the Korean War in April 1951. Around 900 Filipino soldiers of the Philippine 10th Battalion Combat Team held their ground against a vastly larger opposing force. Philippine accounts have placed the enemy force at between 10,000 and 40,000 Chinese and North Korean troops.

At the upper estimate, that would mean roughly 44 opposing soldiers for every Filipino soldier.

Yultong was not a Philippines-China war, and it would be irresponsible to use a 1951 battlefield as a prediction of what a modern conflict between the Philippines and China would produce. Its significance is different: it reminds Filipinos that courage and national resolve cannot be reduced to numbers.

The Philippines does not claim to be a military superpower, nor does it seek confrontation with China. What it insists upon is its sovereignty, national dignity and right to defend its interests under international law.

China’s economic and military strength deserves recognition. But power does not confer a diplomatic license to intimidate smaller neighbors. If Beijing expects respect from the Philippines, it must also show respect for the Philippines.

The issue, therefore, is larger than whether Ambassador Jing Quan should be declared persona non grata. That may ultimately be a matter for the Philippine government to decide based on diplomatic considerations and the national interest.

The more fundamental question is whether Beijing understands that diplomacy cannot be built on intimidation.

That responsibility ultimately rests with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

If an ambassador publicly tells his host country that China could easily defeat it militarily while simultaneously claiming to advance peace and friendship, Beijing should ask whether he remains the right person to represent China in Manila.

Should President Xi Jinping recall Ambassador Jing Quan?

When diplomacy becomes intimidation, perhaps the first responsibility of a government is to ask whether the person delivering the message still deserves to represent his country as a bridge builder rather than a wedge driver.