Of backchannels, politics and foreign policy

Hidden in the tumultuous bickering of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen Antonio Trillanes the IV is the problem admitted by Malacañang spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, that there is a need to speak with one voice in the conduct of the country’s foreign affairs.

Foreign policy again becomes the victim of the conflict that Philippine elites seem to like to get into. Oblivious to the reality that other states are observing the situation closely, both political combatants have continued their fight beyond the halls of the Senate.

Internal politics aside, the current imbroglio points to the need for the government to step back and look into how the Philippines has been handling the question of a changing regional order brought about by China’s rise because it is too important to the country, both as an economic partner and as a geopolitical giant, for it to be treated haphazardly.

In the same vein, the country’s regional diplomacy needs to be further strengthened. More than ever, the need to work together with our fellow ASEAN member-countries on shared regional concerns should be emphasized. Both bilateral and regional approaches to achieving peace in the South China Sea must be fully explored. The challenge is how to ensure that one approach will not undermine the other.

Aside from these regional relationships, the Philippines needs to carefully look out for its own interests as the United States and China vie for regional leadership. The Philippines’ alliance with the US should complement its efforts to attain regional peace. But this should not be misconstrued that the country is relying on the mutual defense treaty between them as the primary reason for its strong stand over the Scarborough Shoal.

Given all of these challenges, the Philippines will need its diplomatic and political leadership to work together more than ever as the country seeks to navigate the tensions brought about by a more interdependent world.

Faceless, nameless

José Calvet de Magalhães, author of the book “The Pure Concept of Diplomacy,” wrote that if “backchannels are used to advance inequivocably national interests because of the lack of confidence in the normal official agents, this may seem a practice that, even if it has certain drawbacks, is acceptable or, at least, excusable.”

Magalhães, however, was still critical of this approach because he believes that the “only proper solution is the replacement of the official agent.” He further cautions that while backchannels can be resorted to by the officials of state to conduct foreign policy, there is always the possibility that these backchannels can be used by other political entities that do not have legitimacy to conduct these affairs.

Backchannel negotiators should be faceless men and women who are sent to do their mission without fanfare and without the cloak and dagger approach that makes such activities obvious. They should also be gracious enough to wait for the acknowledgments that are due to them when history unfolds, as is the case with many successful secret missions.

In the context of the Philippines’ political and policy elites, however, who is prepared to wait for recognition? The country’s political leadership needs to be more statesmen-like in dealing with this national security issue or another country might just end up laughing all the way to Recto Bank.

Moving forward

In what could be a very sad operationalization of the dictum that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, an outsider viewing the current situation would indeed conclude that the mixed signals that the Philippines seems to send out to the world are just a result of its troubled political front, where elites are going against each other regularly. This must stop.

President Aquino and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) have time and again stated the country’s policy toward the Scarborough Shoal and the situation in the South China Sea in general. In brief, the President vowed to protect what the country claims as its own but that the government is willing to negotiate and cooperate for as long as the national interest is protected.

The questions that should be asked when attempting backchannel dialogues are: 1) what’s the remit of the appointed backchannel? 2) what concessions could be made during these meetings?

Backchannels are not normal in the conduct of foreign affairs, which go against the notion being peddled by several commentators. These activities are conducted only when the normal channels of communication are not working. Contrary to the idea that all negotiations are public, professional diplomats generally conduct their activities behind the prying lens of the media.

Many historical cases of backchannel activities are conducted by diplomats because they are trained to carefully handle sensitive information and use their best judgment when using these. However, they cannot do their jobs well if their political principal does not fully trust them. While foreign policy comes from the elected political principals, the implementation is done by professionals who may need to refine them to suit the circumstances in which they must be executed.

If there is a lesson here that the government can take, it should be that everyone who is working on the issue both at the policy level and the negotiating team (whether through the diplomatic route or backchannels) should all be on the same page. This would mean that the official state policy and the remit of the backchannel negotiators should cohere. This would eliminate the mixed signals that the country seems to be emitting to its counterparts.

The presidential spokesperson has reiterated that there must be one voice on foreign affairs and the DFA must be the conduit of it by default but again, it must be emphasized that the approach should be unified and no blindsiding should happen. – Rappler.com

(Julio Amador III is currently a graduate student specializing in foreign policy at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. The opinions expressed in this commentary belong to him alone and do not represent the views of the institutions that he is affiliated with.)