Gaslighting diplomacy

Chinese ambassador to the Philippines Huang Xilian recently made a bold—and rather undiplomatic—statement that said: “The Philippines is advised to unequivocally oppose ‘Taiwan independence’ rather than stoking the fire by offering the [United States] access to the military bases near the Taiwan Strait if you care genuinely about the 150,000 OFWs (overseas Filipino workers) [in Taiwan].”

Rightfully so, politicians and citizens alike saw it for what it was: a threat to our OFWs’ safety if we don’t toe the Chinese line. The Chinese embassy insisted afterwards that it was misinterpreted or taken out of context but failed to offer any alternative interpretation to the statement. Awkwardly, it is our own executive branch and particularly officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs who sided with the Chinese ambassador, insisting that no threat was made.

Balancing diplomacy between China and the US requires more skill and expertise than I have—I leave this to my political science colleagues. What I would like to focus on is how this incident demonstrates the use of language for intimidation, while at the same time gaslighting you into thinking that you somehow brought this on to yourself.

The ambassador’s language reminded me of how Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the West and Ukraine for “starting the war” when it was clearly Russia, who invaded another sovereign nation, that was the aggressor. Ambassador Huang continued in his statement: “Some tried to find excuse for the new Edca (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) sites by citing the safety of the 150,000 OFWs in Taiwan, while China is the last country that wishes to see conflict over the Strait because people on both sides are Chinese. But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is to guard against external interference and all separatist activities.” Any person with a decent level of reading comprehension will take this to mean: “We don’t want to hurt anyone, but if we do use force on Taiwan, it’s your fault.”

That is the gaslighting we’ve seen in diplomacy and politics lately. “If we hurt you, it’s because you asked for it.” We don’t even have to go into international relations to see this play out; we see this done domestically as well. Our Filipino version: “Nanlaban kasi.”

This manipulative reasoning—a way to throw responsibility toward your victim—is something I hear a lot in the realm of intimate partner violence and child abuse. How many times have we heard stories of perpetrators hitting their spouses while telling them that “you made me do this”? “If only you didn’t nag at me, I wouldn’t have hit you.” “If only you didn’t flirt with someone else, I wouldn’t have hurt you.” I hear similar reasoning for child abuse: “Kung hindi lang kasi matigas ang ulo mo … kung sumusunod ka lang sa akin, hindi tayo magkakaganito.”

First fact against such gaslighting: Behaviors are the responsibility of the doer. Behavior, by definition, is voluntary and generally within your control. If you are upset, there are many ways to express that. Using violent behavior or physical force is always a choice. In the family context, perhaps the parents have been raised to treat physical force as an acceptable way to control someone else. However, it is still that parent’s responsibility to work through their own experience and unlearn harmful habits for the sake of their family’s safety. It should never be the child’s responsibility to appease a violent parent.

Another fact against such gaslighting: Recurring or systematic violence cannot be merely provoked. A person—or organization—that has made a habit out of violence is likely to display violent behavior, regardless of its target. In the case of China, if it were not the Edca sites, it would be something else. If it were not the Philippines, they’d find another nation to blame for their future aggression toward Taiwan. What we should base our diplomatic trust on as a nation is the other nation’s track record of how they treat us. We don’t have to go too far back to recognize that China has been aggressive with territorial disputes, at the expense and harm of our own fishermen. Left unable to defend our territory, it only makes sense that we seek alliances to strengthen our position.

At the same time, this is why it is important not to see it as a China vs. US issue. Based on history and track record alone, we should be wary of both nations and create diplomatic decisions that truly protect our own interests. They keep blaming each other as aggressors when another fact is likely to be true: That they are both aggressors.

——————

aatuazon@up.edu.ph