If he is not the consummate diplomat and deal maker that he is known to be in business circles, I would not even comment on Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario’s almost amateurish handling of the lingering RP-China spat over the Panatag Shoal (Huangyan Island) and other abutments in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). But he is such a polished operator in the eyes of his peers that his conduct over this very critical issue has not only been disappointing. It is downright amazing. Why can’t del Rosario act like his US counterpart, Hillary Clinton, was one comment I overheard in a discussion of Makati based businessmen and pundits sometime back.
Apparently, they were referring to the polished manner by which the top US diplomat was able to “overcome” the incendiary confrontation between her and her Chinese counterparts over the case of blind Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng who had escaped house arrest and sought refuge at the US Embassy in Beijing on the eve of the annual Strategic and Economic (S&ED) dialog between the two powers last month.
Instead of doing a del Rosario, i.e., raising hell over the Chen incident in line with the US’ high profile “human rights” advocacy, Clinton resorted to a kind of “nod and wink” operation which pleased both sides and allowed the dialog to proceed without much pain and hassle, so to speak. That despite howls of “appeasement from all over the place” especially the Republicans and some of the US’ allies all of whom have been on the prowl for such incidents to happen in order to embarrass the Chinese. Amid all the tensions, Secretary Clinton offered a way out allowing both sides to bend over backward and allow the situation to be resolved in time. She publicly advised that “we cannot allow such disagreements to derail our relationship or hold back our cooperation on a broad range of matters.”
Said  Clinton: “You have to look at the trend lines not just the headlines and that is especially true in the China-US relationship... The trend is clear. Our countries are growing more interdependent and so we need to build a resilient relationship that allows both of us to thrive and meet our regional and global responsibilities without unhealthy competition, rivalry or conflict.”
That is as clear a pronouncement as can be as far as the US is concerned. At this point and possibly for years to come, America will not risk its growing interdependent relations with China for anything save perhaps a direct assault by the latter threatening its very life and stability.
Unfortunately, as far as the US is concerned,  engaging the Chinese militarily in support of the Philippine position on Panatag Shoal and the West Philippine Sea does not rise to such a life threatening situation and Secretary del Rosario had better believe it. What the US, Japan and other countries within its sphere of influence want is “freedom of navigation and commerce” in and around the disputed areas which all the claimant countries, including the Chinese have committed to do. So, what are we so high pitched about then?
Take this latest “word war” over the pullout of all  vessels from both the Philippines and China due to inclement weather. We all understand that whether both of us “pull out”  due to inclement weather or not it is to our mutual interest to take pause and bring some of our vessels home, for a host of reasons including provisioning. So, why did del Rosario and his crew go to the extent of injecting that advisory that the “pull out of fishing vessels from inside the lagoon has been agreed upon last June 5,”  by both countries. Even assuming that such was true as part of the “gradual disengagement” solution which a host of influential quarters on both sides of the divide have advocated from the start of this contrived stand off, what was the point of even publicly announcing it? To gain some points? That was surely amateurish.
Why didn’t del Rosario and his boys simply join the Chinese in saying that the “pull out”  was due to inclement weather. That would have been more appropriate, considering the situation. That breach immediately merited a riposte from the Chinese who had to say they will continue “maintaining administration and vigilance over the Huangyan waters.” They even let out sarcastically: “We wonder where the so-called commitment the Philippine side mentioned on China’s withdrawal of vessels came from. We hope the Philippine side can restrain their words and behavior and do more things conducive to the development of bilateral relations.”
That was an expected riposte which our own diplomats should have been aware of. Even assuming that a covenant of disengagement was being drawn up or even in paper already, one does not divulge the contents until an appropriate time is available for both sides, not just one, to make the announcement. Secretary del Rosario should have learned from Secretary Clinton that in very sensitive matters such as this, extraordinary care is expended to make sure that not only the international community but, perhaps even more importantly, the citizens of both countries understood what was going on. They should have realized and must now if they have not factored it in the fact that China is undergoing a leadership transition and they cannot afford to be misunderstood, especially by their own people. If there was any  need for such an announcement it would have been more proper to have a joint declaration instead of us doing it on our own and committing the Chinese to our own words at that!
So, the earlier we take pause, tone down our rhetoric and be ever vigilant over the developments, the better for all concerned. For example, there is no need for del Rosario and his crew to now suggest after that exchange over the pull out that “we are keeping our options open and studying whether to send back our vessels or not.”
Again, what is the point of this statement? To show our resolve? To return to a tit-for-tat situation? What? I am sure the good secretary understands the value of “quiet diplomacy” in resolving matters such as this lingering spat over these disputed areas.
So, he should practice what the US and Secretary Clinton have enunciated — look at the trend lines, not the headlines. Unless, we ignore China’s presence which we cannot do no matter how the likes of Secretary del Rosario may wish, simply because the Chinese are not only our neighbors but they are married, if we may call it such, with to our own Chinoys in more ways than one, we must accept the reality that we are getting more interdependent than ever. So, the earlier del Rosario and his boss, P-Noy, realize this and take Clinton’s this advice to heart, the better for all concerned.