Chinese persona non grata?

Viewed through the prism of cause and effect, there appears to be no compelling causal link between whatever statement or act the current Chinese ambassador to Manila may have allegedly committed. Offhand, there is no armed conflict between the sending state and the host or receiving state, in this case, China and the Philippines — a situation that at best is gray, or at the very least, a chronic battle of narratives.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself voiced a firm “no” to declaring Ambassador Jing Quan persona non grata. Yet Vice Mayor Maurice Philip Alexis Albayda reportedly tagged the Chinese envoy as such at a town hall in Kalayaan, Palawan. Per Jean d’Aspremont (2006) of Oxford Public International Law, when a diplomatic or consular agent is declared PNG, he “could be denied access to the territory and would not be endowed with the privileges or immunities attached to his function,” pursuant to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Has the “loss of diplomatic and consular privileges” become “almost immediate”? Has the sending state recalled Quan? Has he become an ordinary foreign national stripped of immunity and privilege? Truly, “ascertaining whether the receiving State has somehow misused its right to ask for the recall of a diplomatic or consular agent” is rather difficult.

Unsurprisingly, some newspapers weighed this development as front-page headline news, thereby inflating it as attention-grabbing. Whether the move is right or wrong depends on who speaks from the ranks of local and national officials. But foremost, the President has already spoken, yet this appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Who else enjoys the highest authority? In international law, the right rests with the host state — in this case, no authority lower than the President. The Department of Foreign Affairs has also warned that declaring Chinese diplomatic personnel PNG carries “serious implications,” essentially a move that should only be a “last resort” when diplomatic relations severely deteriorate, fracture, or rupture.

Again, under the Vienna Convention, a demarche declaring someone PNG terminates the individual’s diplomatic immunity and compels departure, usually within 24 to 48 hours. By definition, persona non grata is a formal declaration by a host state declaring a foreign diplomat unacceptable, requiring recall or expulsion. However, the usual parameters for declaring an ambassador PNG do not appear to be present. What behavior was deemed inappropriate? Was there spying, violation of local laws, interference in domestic affairs, or involvement in terroristic activities?

It bears repeating that such a declaration constitutes the most severe sanction a country can impose on foreign diplomats. If the sending state does not recall the individual, the host country effectively cancels immunity or refuses to regard the person as a mission member. It must also be weighed whether such a countermeasure stems from violations of Articles 41 and 42 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which require respect for the laws of the receiving state and non-interference in internal affairs. Has any purported violation truly been established?

In the Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization (Vol. 57, 2017), Dr. Amer Fakhoury argued that hosting states have remedies in response to diplomatic intervention in domestic affairs, measures to restrain abuses, circumstances allowing recourse to sanctions, and considerations on the effectiveness of such remedies within international conventions. Was the move therefore consistent with international convention? Naked xenophobia driven by overzealous nationalism is a no-no, reciprocal or retaliatory acts from the sending state notwithstanding.