Shortly after that highly scandalous act of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) against our Philippine Coast Guard members, President Marcos junior immediately summoned the Chinese ambassador to the palace. News reports say Marcos Junior called for a “reset” of Sino-RP relations, which means having a direct line between Malacañang and the PRC to avoid misunderstandings, and for the PRC to order its coast guard to “stand down.” However, the meeting failed to say what consequences or accountability the Philippine side demanded of the PRC, particularly to repair the civil damages wrought by their side to an injured Filipino coast guard whose head opened after being struck by a baton by one of the barbaric members of the Chinese coast guard. Did we even ask the PRC to pay for the medical expenses of the injured Filipino coast guard?

Philippine defense secretary Gibo Teodoro tried to explain this meeting in the context of “good behavior.” In various interviews, Teodoro assures that there is no significant shift in Sino-Philippine policy, only that, for the “reset” to happen, the PRC should exhibit “good behavior.” Clarifying what constitutes “good behavior” is essential so that the audience understands the expectations and implications of such diplomatic terms, which remain an enigma.

In diplomacy, terms like “good behavior” must be explicitly defined and detailed to prevent misinterpretation, as vague language leaves room for ambiguity and undermines accountability. If we leave it to imagination, good behavior may mean bad in the Philippine context, or vice versa. There is simply no universal philosophical definition of good behavior.

For the PRC, good behavior is demonstrated by asserting sovereignty over the area, while the Philippine Coast Guard views resistance as legitimate, revealing conflicting interpretations that highlight the term’s ambiguity.

On the other hand, the PSG thinks that it is also good behavior when they tried to block their PRC counterparts. Therefore, that striking incident seems to be interpreted as a legal consequence of performing a duty, which is interpreted as good behavior.

Teodoro tries to define “good behavior” as adherence to international law. Perfectly fine. However, if you ask both sides—the PRC and the RP—they are both acting in accordance with international law. The system narrative of the PRC and the Philippines in that area remains that, under a United Nations convention, they are both recognized as territorial sovereigns and are expected to act accordingly.

The 2017 UNCLOS ruling is supposed to have settled who gets sovereign control of what, yet since the PRC raised a technicality, the ruling remains in doubt, as far as the Chinese side is concerned. The chaotic nature of international relations recognizes that both the PRC and the Philippines are well within their respective beliefs of asserting sovereignty in that particular portion of the West Philippine Sea.

So, behaving in a good manner depends on the construction of both sides. Unless there is a bilateral agreement detailing what good behavior means, this so-called “reset” is just a PR statement, meant to de-escalate tensions, while totally brushing aside that there was damage wrought against a Filipino. This highlights that the ‘reset’ is primarily a political gesture rather than a substantive solution, encouraging the audience to critically assess its real impact.