Diplomacy 101

Sarrians, France - In the wake of the brouhaha over “back channelling” with China, I thought it would be useful to contribute to the public discourse with a refresher on the “do’s and dont’s” of this black art.  

International diplomacy is the management of relations – political and economic among others - between states.  The chief architect of foreign policy is the President and his Cabinet. This policy is articulated and conducted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and in the field, by professional diplomats or on occasion, special envoys tasked with specific missions. This is usually referred to as Track I diplomacy. 

Once in a while, in highly exceptional cases, a government (or more likely the chief executive) may feel it useful to open conversations through “alternate” or “back” channels – non-government personalities who may be retired officials or politicians, business men, academics and other public figures. This is the so-called “informal” or Track II diplomacy – which reminds me of a question as to its meaning that Senator Osmeña profounded to a bewildered nominee for ambassador to Beijing in an earlier confirmation hearing. I previously wrote about the usefulness of such an approach in managing the West Philipine issue. I said then that this would permit both governments to explore options for resolution that may, at that particular point in time, not be ripe for formal negotiations particularly if they seem to deviate from the current publicly held position.

Now in the case of Senator Trillanes, it seems it was the Chinese who first approached him to be a back channel to the President.  Why did the other side want a back channel to the President? I will be generous and surmise that they probably wanted to sidestep a very firm Secretary of Foreign Affairs that had successfully cast China in an unfavorable light internationally on this issue. 

To me this is a legitimate reason for back chanelling – at least from the perspective of Chinese national interest. We were in a sense in an advantageous position despite the military reality – but only if the back chaneller did his duty and remained objective rather than as it proved.

Typically, those tapped as back channel facilitators are meant to keep their counsel and report only to those who commissioned them. They do not give press conference, argue in the legislature or pick a public fight with members of the Executive. Above all, this is conducted in pursuit of the country’s foreign policy which even though by its very nature is dynamic and adaptive, is nonetheless the President and his Cabinet’s prerogative to craft. It should not be based on the back chaneller’s personal interpretation or worse, what he believes is the right policy. Otherwise his mission degenerates into damaging “rogue diplomacy”.

Unfortunately, from media accounts, Senator Trillanes has proven to be a most unsuitable choice for such a delicate mission. Press reports indicate that he took positions so wildly divergent from the official line as to be almost unbelievable.  He criticized in the severest terms Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, to the totally unjustified extent of calling him a traitor. He dragged in the name of the President thereby destroying any chance for the government to quarantine the problem. Left with no choice, the President confirmed that he had authorized Senator Trillanes to be a back channel which unwittingly created the impression that perhaps he had doubts about the abilities of his Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Fortunately, subsequent Malacañang statements have clarified that the Secretary continues to enjoy the full confidence of the President.

In the wake of all of these, the perception is that we seemed to be disunited and unclear about how we want to move forward. This needs to be corrected immediately. The dispatch of a special envoy to meet with the incoming leader of China was a step in this direction. The next immediate step is to fill the vacancy in Beijing created by Ambassador Sonia Brady’s unplanned re-retirement.

New ambassador to China

I have received reports that a prominent member of the local Filipino-Chinese community as well as a long time Filipino refugee or exile in China are being considered to replace Ambassador Brady as our highest representative in the People’s Republic of China (PROC).

I was shocked that the two are candidates for the most sensitive and important post in our Foreign Service, particularly at a time when the issue of the West Philippine Sea has emerged as one of the defining issues in our relations with the PROC. I hope we do not shoot ourselves in the foot by sending well-meaning amateurs who lack the necessary perspective, objectivity and skills required for the most challenging post in the Foreign Service – as the two candidates seem to be.

I have said in previous columns that over and above the intellectual and professional skills that are needed for the job and which, by the way, are not learned overnight, the candidate for the Beijing post should be objective and disinterested.

A member of the Filipino-Chinese community, particularly one with business ties with China, does not fit the bill because of ethnic ties and/or economic links with the host country because these work against the detachment and objectivity required to effectively and forcefully fulfill the envoy’s mission.

Neither does a political exile who has spent something like the last 40 of his 60 odd years in this world in China pass all the test of objectivity. That candidate has been fed, sheltered and cared for by the Chinese for four decades during which he must have accumulated a long list of IOUs that would have to be paid back if and when he becomes our envoy to China. In fact, he was quoted by the Philippine media recently as stating that “I understand China more than the Philippines.” If the quotation is accurate, we can expect such contender to represent the host country more effectively than the Philippines.

In view of these considerations, I submit that a seasoned career diplomat with deep knowledge and understanding of the Asia Pacific region in general and China in particular should be appointed as our next ambassador to China.