By Ninez Cacho-Olivares
The Cambodian ambassador to the Philippines was summoned by the Department of Foreign Affairs but he snubbed the DFA summons and sent his deputy instead, who was handed a note verbale.
The DFA wanted an explanation from the Cambodian Ambassador Hos Sereythonh on what he had written about the "inflexible and non-negotiable position" of the Philippines and Vietnam on the South China Sea row that resulted in the failure of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to issue a traditional joint communiqué at the end of its ministerial meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia two weeks ago.
The Cambodian Embassy's second secretary Tan Chandaravuth, was handed the note verbale by Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Erlinda Basilio to express the Philippine government's displeasure over the ambassador's comments and demanded that he explain his comments published in a local newspaper.
It appears that the Cambodian diplomat included an accusation that the Philippines and Vietnam played "dirty politics" in trying to solve a maritime row with China.
The comments were in a letter Hos sent to the editor of a newspaper last Monday.
In the letter, Hos accused the Philippines and Vietnam of working to "sabotage and hijack the joint communiqué" during the Asean meeting.
Hos argued that the Philippines and Vietnam should not blame Cambodia for Asean's failure to issue an end-of-meeting statement spelling concerns in the region, a first in its 45-year history.
It certainly looks like the Aquino government is going to succeed in alienating itself from Asean, as all the government's much too combative moves tend to destroy the unity that should still be enjoyed by Asean country members, despite the lack of a joint communiqué.
What is strange about the DFA summoning the Cambodian ambassador to explain his written criticisms is the fact that the Aquino government also has been much too critical and insulting even in its statements against Cambodia, calling the Cambodian government and Laos as a stooge of China, as they toe Beijing's line either by not openly backing a multilateral approach or opposing it outright.
But even the records show that the Philippine government through DFA Chief Alberto del Rosario, tried to insert the Spratlys dispute with China in that aborted communiqué. A move that certainly spelled doom since the DFA chief and other foreign ministers in Asean must have known that such would never pass muster. For such communiques to pass muster, it is usual to engage in generalities, rather than specifics.
Frankly, there really was no need to make this issue between Hos and the DFA go to the extent of a protest and a note verbale. The DFA said its piece during and after the Asean meeting. The Indonesian foreign minister subsequently launched a mission to save the bloc's "cohesiveness," resulting in a belated statement affirming commitments to a proposed "code of conduct" over the South China Sea.
But what the Philippine government wanted was for Asean to support its position against China.
Surely, the Aquino government didn't think that such specific statements in support of the country's dispute with China (not even Vietnam was being mentioned) would be passed without any objections from at least two Asean countries?
So Cambodia and Laos may be toeing China's position. But isn't the Aquino government toeing the United States' position, and making it all too clear?
But said the DFA spokesman, Raul Hernandez: "We will continue to summon him (Hos) until he is able to come. We want him to explain what he meant when he stated that the 'inflexible and non-negotiable position of two countries of Asean is dirty politics.'"
So DFA will continue to summon Hos, who has snubbed it, but what else can it do? Bully Cambodia into submission, because Cambodia has no army to fight back?
The Philippine government has called China a bu lly. But isn't the Aquino government now bullying Cambodia this way?
Why should the Philippines be allowed to criticize Cambodia, while taking offense when Cambodia criticizes the Philippine government?
What's sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose.
No comments:
Post a Comment