To recall or not to recall

“

A recall of the ambassador may be seen as a measure to preserve the Philippines’ national dignity.

“

The diplomatic protests, numbering over 400 since the time of the late President Noynoy Aquino, seemed to have fallen on deaf ears as China’s bullying ways continue unabated.

Calls for the government to pull out its Ambassador to China, Jaime FlorCruz, on account of recent events involving the harassment of two Philippine vessels on a resupply mission to Ayungin Shoal seem to be founded on solid ground.

It is viewed by many as a strong diplomatic response that asserts Philippine sovereignty, a move that can send a clear message to China that acts of harassment will not be tolerated. We, for one, believe that this action can serve as a deterrent that could emphasize the country’s commitment to defending its territorial integrity.

Considering the potential consequences and the broader context of Philippines-China relations, such a drastic diplomatic measure can draw international attention to China’s actions and foster support from the global community.

By taking a stand against Chinese aggression, the Philippines can gain diplomatic and moral support, which may increase pressure on China to abide by international law.

No less than Senator Francis Tolentino expressed strong denunciation of another water cannon attack by a Chinese Coast Guard vessel.

“This is [to show] a high level of condemnation because our embassy in Beijing will have no [chief of mission],” said Tolentino, vice chair of the Senate foreign relations committee.

“This does not mean that we are cutting our diplomatic relations (with China),” the senator clarified. “This is us telling them that ‘you have really gone overboard and [it’s time for you] to take notice because we have already filed hundreds of diplomatic protests.”

The diplomatic protests, numbering over 400 since the time of the late President Noynoy Aquino, seemed to have fallen on deaf ears as China’s bullying ways continue unabated. This could only mean one thing — Beijing would not comply with international law and respect Manila’s sovereignty.

Of course, China would always turn the tables and insist that Ayungin Shoal is theirs historically because of its 9-dash line claim. The landmark arbitral ruling that Manila won in 2016 has invalidated that, and China is left clutching at straws.

However, the superpower that it is, Beijing has ignored the ruling and continues to carry out more dangerous and aggressive actions to block the Armed Forces’ rotational and reprovisioning missions to marines stationed on the rusting Sierra Madre outpost at Ayungin.

The recent incident at the disputed shoal, it must be noted, is not an isolated event but rather part of a pattern of assertive behavior by China.

A recall of the ambassador may be seen as a measure to preserve the Philippines’ national dignity. It signals that the country will not accept bullying tactics and will defend its interests with resilience. This move can resonate with the Filipino public, fostering a sense of unity and pride.

Of course, recalling the ambassador is a drastic diplomatic measure that may escalate tensions further. This escalation could have serious consequences, potentially leading to a further deterioration of bilateral relations and jeopardizing economic ties, harming both nations.

Critics argue that recalling the ambassador may have a limited impact on changing

China’s behavior, as

Beijing has shown resilience in the face of international criticism in the past. Chinese authorities might dismiss the move and continue their assertive actions in the disputed waters.

Some argue that diplomatic channels and dialogue should be prioritized over a recall. Engaging in talks and negotiations provides a platform for addressing grievances and finding peaceful resolutions. Maintaining open lines of communication can be crucial in preventing further misunderstandings and conflicts.

While asserting sovereignty and garnering international support are valid considerations, the Philippines must carefully weigh the potential escalation of tensions and the impact on diplomatic relations.

Ultimately, a nuanced approach that combines assertiveness with diplomatic engagement may be the most prudent course of action, ensuring the protection of national interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict in this sensitive geopolitical context.