Silent waters run deep. So goes an adage. But in the sphere of political economy, does “deep” refer to “connections”, if not “pockets”?
In recent events, the China Coast Guard’s aggressive use of water cannons against Filipino civilian vessels in the disputed waters of the South China Sea has once again ignited tensions between the Philippines and China. This confrontation not only challenges the maritime sovereignty of the Philippines but also tests the diplomatic resolve of its leaders. Amidst this geopolitical strife, Vice President Sara Duterte’s silence on the matter has drawn considerable attention, especially given her outspoken stance on domestic issues.
Vice President Duterte has been notably vocal in her support for the SMNI network and its founder, Apollo Quiboloy, who faces serious accusations including human trafficking and rape. Her defense of Quiboloy and criticism of actions against SMNI contrast sharply with her lack of public response to the international incident at sea. This selective silence raises questions about the priorities and diplomatic strategies of the current Philippine administration.
The juxtaposition of Duterte’s reactions—or lack thereof—highlights a complex web of national interests, political alliances, and the challenges of balancing domestic and international concerns. Her strong defense of Quiboloy, a controversial figure with close ties to the Duterte family, underscores the intertwining of political loyalty and personal relationships in shaping policy and public statements. Conversely, the muted response to China’s aggressive actions reflects the delicate balance the Philippines must maintain in its relations with a powerful neighbor and key economic partner.
Critics argue that the vice president’s silence on the maritime incident signifies a troubling indifference to national sovereignty and the welfare of Filipino citizens involved in the altercation. This perception is compounded by the Philippines’ historical challenges in asserting its territorial claims against China’s expansive maritime ambitions. The stark contrast in Duterte’s approach to defending a media outlet and a religious leader against her inaction on a critical national security issue has not gone unnoticed by observers, both local and international.
Supporters of the vice president, however, may argue that diplomacy requires a measured approach and that public statements can sometimes undermine ongoing negotiations or strategies aimed at de-escalating tensions. They might contend that Duterte’s silence does not necessarily equate to inaction but could be part of a broader, more calculated response to China’s provocations.
In analyzing Vice President Duterte’s selective silence, it becomes clear that the intertwining of domestic politics and international relations presents a challenging balancing act for Philippine leaders. The current scenario underscores the need for a coherent foreign policy strategy that not only addresses the immediate challenges posed by territorial disputes but also reflects the broader values and priorities of the Philippine government.
As the Philippines navigates these troubled waters, the actions and inactions of its leaders will continue to be scrutinized both at home and abroad. The resolution of these complex issues will require not only diplomatic finesse but also a commitment to the principles of sovereignty, national integrity, and the well-being of its citizens. The coming months will be telling in how Vice President Duterte and the administration address these critical challenges, shaping the future of Philippine foreign policy and its standing on the global stage.
Polevu 