Seeing the Unclear: What Constitutes a Diplomatic Protest

DFA Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano | Photo by Lito Ocampo

AS PUBLIC outcry mounts over the Philippine government’s silence on China’s continuing presence and militarization in the West Philippine Sea, Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano insists that the Duterte administration prefers a quiet approach over “megaphone diplomacy.” In a briefing by the National Task Force for West Philippine Sea on May 30, Cayetano denied allegations of inaction, telling House representatives that the DFA has filed “several dozens, maybe 50, 100” diplomatic protests against China.

For most media, the claim ended the discussion and signaled media’s satisfaction or indifference to this development reflecting the government’s handling of this contentious issue. Thankfully, not every news organization let this expansive claim go unchallenged.

In its May 31 report, the Philippine Daily Inquirer said the secretary “loosely used the term ‘diplomatic protest’ to refer to any expression of disagreement.” The broadsheet quoted his explanation: “When we file a note verbale, that’s a protest… If we list down everything that’s a protest. If we list down 10 things, then we ‘protest’ 10 things. It’s the content… If I get the microphone and I say, ‘China, what you’re doing is wrong,’ that’s a protest (“Lawmakers probe PH inaction on China“).”

CMFR cheers the Inquirer’s June 1 editorial for going beyond this quote, explaining why Cayetano’s loose use of “diplomatic protest” hardly satisfies.

Inquirer’s editorial called Cayetano’s claim of filing 50-100 protests “specious” because of his “own, special, nontextbook definition of diplomatic protest.” Inquirer said only the note verbale counts as a diplomatic protest, adding that “Cayetano wants Filipinos to believe that by merely making a list of grievances and including the agenda in a negotiation, the DFA is already filing as many diplomatic protests as there are grievances (“Cayetano’s bluff“).”

CMFR cheers Rappler as well for pointing out that the DFA’s June 4 statement, which attempted to set the record straight on the agency’s diplomatic actions, was “vague.”

DFA claimed in “Statement of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Ernesto Abella on Philippine Diplomatic Actions on Issues” that the Duterte administration “has engaged in 85 diplomatic actions, 35 of which were undertaken by Secretary Alan Peter S. Cayetano. We asserted our rights numerous times in bilateral consultations, meetings and in written in face to face documents.”

Rappler said the statement did not specify what the “diplomatic actions” were about, and whether they are in the form of protests.

“If yes, did the Philippines file notes verbale, and how many? Take note that Cayetano broadly defines diplomatic protests to include even verbal reminders,” Rappler said (“DFA says Duterte admin made ’85 diplomatic actions’ – on what?“).

Rappler added, “At least 3 reporters, including this writer (Paterno Esmaquel II), have asked the DFA to clarify these matters, but the DFA has not acknowledged our questions as of posting time.”

In a previous report, Rappler cited “at least 3 informed sources” who said the DFA silently filed a note verbale against China on May 26. These sources said the document listed incidents such as missile installation and China’s harassment of Filipino fisherfolk in the West Philippine Sea (“Philippines silently filed note verbale against China“). Cayetano confirmed on June 1 that the DFA did so “because there was an incident,” but did not give details (“Cayetano conceals details of note verbale vs China“).

Silence and ambiguity, most especially from the government, are worthy of journalistic inquiry. The failure to explain, the refusal to clarify on the part of a public official are significant indications which deserve follow-up on the part of media. At this point, the media’s failure to enlarge on this issue raises questions about how the Duterte administration stands on the issues of sovereignty and its independent stance in its dealings with China.