Big win for the Philippines

Honolulu, Hawaii — Filipinos the world over are rejoicing at the favorable unanimous decision handed down by the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague that found China violating the sovereign rights of the Philippines in its exclusive economic zone. The tribunal also ruled China has “no legal basis to claim historic rights” to resources within the sea areas falling under the so-called “nine-dash line,” saying claims must be made based on maritime entitlements emanating from land features. 

Credit must go to the Aquino administration, in particular former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario who worked hard to elevate our suit before the global stage, firmly convinced that we had a strong case despite the fact that he often stood alone in his conviction during international gatherings.

Recognition must also be given to Senior Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio whose legal work on the issue served as basis for the Philippines’ position — outlined in Carpio’s very comprehensive presentation entitled “Historical Facts, Historical Lies and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea” supported by maps, international cases and decisions that effectively bore holes in China’s so-called historical facts and its claims that the nine-dash line is based on international law.

China, however, has refused to recognize the ruling. But according to experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Beijing’s non-participation in the proceedings and its rejection does not make the PCA ruling any less binding or legal.

Although there is no enforcement mechanism for the ruling, “China will suffer considerable reputational cost” by its refusal to comply with the decision, the CSIS said. China also risks becoming a pariah in the international community because its continued refusal will signal it is a country that cannot be counted on to honor its commitments. Let’s not forget, China signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 and ratified it in 1996 – effectively accepting the court’s jurisdiction on any dispute under the agreement. China tried to squirm out of the agreement when it submitted a declaration of non-acceptance of the arbitration, yet it did not renounce the UNCLOS itself under which the Philippines based its complaint. China’s non-acceptance declaration, therefore, had no legal effect, experts said.

Beijing can continue with its chest beating, but it knows it cannot keep flouting the international rule of law – which is why it worked hard to portray itself as a victim and rally countries to its position. But so far, only eight nations took China’s side while 40 countries had recognized the outcome as legally binding. Major countries like Japan, the United States along with Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, India, and European Union members have called on both the Philippines and China to comply with the decision, observe the rule of law and settle maritime disputes in a peaceful manner. There is, however, the possibility China could resort to more provocative actions and escalate tension in the disputed territories. It could continue with its illegal reclamation and construction activities, but this would carry “enormous diplomatic and economic costs.” 

Aside from punching holes in China’s nine-dash line claim, the ruling opened the possibility of other claimant nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia to file complaints against China. As CSIS said, “How many more will speak up now that a decision has been reached? And how many will continue to do so in bilateral meetings, international forums and UN General Assembly votes for the years it might take to convince China of the costs it is incurring?”

Professor Michael Byers (who holds the Canada research chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia) pointed out — “If China seeks to maintain physical control over the South China Sea, it is not just defying the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It is rejecting the basis of the international community — that treaties, freely consented to, must be upheld. Chinese defiance would have deep ramifications.” 

While it is understandable for President Duterte to want to talk with China and discuss a peaceful resolution to the issue, the government should not squander the opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength.  Even if he wants to play the Chinese card, the President should remember the US is a strong ally and should stay close with the latter on this issue. If one would recall, Chinese reclamation activities at Scarborough Shoal were deterred by “strong signaling from Washington,” along with the continued conduct of freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) near the disputed territories. According to the US Navy, it plans to step up FONOPS near the artificial structures that US Pacific Command Commander Admiral Harry Harris has described as China’s “Great Wall of Sand.”  

Contrary to some criticisms, the ruling is not a Pyrrhic victory because it has strengthened our position and rekindled our national pride. This is a big win for the Philippines that has reverberated all over the globe — a source of pride because it has shown the community of nations that Filipinos will stand their ground when it comes to our integrity and sovereignty as a nation. Most of all, the PCA decision proves we are on the right side of history.

***

RIMPAC, the world’s biggest naval exercise, is now happening in Hawaii with over 200 aircraft, 45 surface ships and 25,000 military personnel from 26 participating countries. The biennial exercises — which will last until August — are conducted to enhance security and promote cooperation and prosperity in the Indo-Asia Pacific region. 

Ironically, one of the participants is China which sent five ships, including a guided missile naval destroyer. Does this mean China adheres to what US Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Scott Swift described as “the norms, standards and rules and laws that provided the great stability and security” nations have enjoyed in the last 70 years?

***

Email: [email protected]