My view on the Hague decision

Those who think that after the arbitration Tribunal issued its award in favor of the Philippines that China would say “you got me” and quietly withdraw from the geographic features that it is presently occupying will be severely disappointed.

Predictably, China rejected the decision and said it would continue to exercise sovereignty over the rock outcroppings. The significance of the award is that while it cannot be enforced, it is binding and permanent, and thus, forever frames any conversation on the South China Sea to adherence to the rule of law and respect for multilateral institutions.

In moving forward, we should recognize the award places China in a real bind. Having staked sovereignty over the South China Sea as its core interest and ready to go to war to defend it, the Chinese leadership cannot just abandon this overnight and expect to stay in power. That is what’s at stake politically and I believe that is something that the leadership can deal with at the proper time.

But as I said in my previous column, China’s strategic interest in assuring its maritime routes are secure and guaranteeing its access to the world’s oceans is immutable. Unless a solution is reached that balances this strategic interest with the interest of the rest of the world for freedom of navigation and innocent passage on waters through which a third of the world’s commerce passes through, tension in the region will continue for the foreseeable future. We should allow for this solution to bubble up to the surface and it starts by recognizing these fundamental interests.    

The world is carefully watching how China will react. It cannot forever flaunt the rules or it will never earn the trust and confidence of its neighbors and the world to recognize and indeed support its legitimate aspirations. But that message from the global community, and particularly, from its neighbors should be consistent and unequivocal and reminded repeatedly.

So far, the message from the global community has been that to call on both Parties to abide by the ruling and refrain from escalation. ASEAN, however, has yet to speak as a group. When the Philippines filed its case with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013, I remember being told in a board meeting by a Singaporean colleague that we Filipinos are ruining the unity of ASEAN. And it showed in the inability of ASEAN to agree on a statement calling on parties to avoid escalating tension. Predictably, despite denials to the contrary, a couple of members derailed that nascent effort. These members are firmly at China’s bidding, presumably in their national interest which makes principles like rule of law irrelevant for their survival. But for the rest, enduring unity can only come from a common and firm conviction on certain principles, and one of them is respect for the rule of law. It is also essential to its survival. A neighbor that expressly flaunts rule of law will certainly give one sleepless nights.

Since the ruling, ASEAN members have issued individual statements. While I would have hoped they would have gone as far ahead as calling for the ruling to be binding on the Parties, understandably they were more nuanced. They essentially supported the supremacy of the rule of law. One constant in their message is a call for agreement on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. China will take a big step towards demonstrating respect for the rule of law if it stops its opposition to the COC and quickly reach agreement.  An early indication of how ASEAN and China will react to the ruling, hopefully in a constructive way, is the forthcoming meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers next week in Laos. Laos is a known ally of China and will have an outsize role in determining any outcome.

We have to be prepared for the next steps. The next few months will be critical in determining how we negotiate with China. I have consistently stated we have to have a strategic plan B which is now incumbent on the Duterte administration. That plan B can be articulated by a panel of experts and is intended to provide guidance moving forward to the President’s trusted negotiating brain trust. That panel should include former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario whose dogged determination led us through this process of proving that “right is might.” He is a true patriot I would suggest, even more than the Senator who once branded him a “traitor”. Del Rosario can provide the understanding of the diplomatic nuances of dealing with China and would certainly not misspeak. There is a need for legal expertise and none has been more resolute in his conviction of the merits of our case than Justice Antonio Carpio.

One critical output of the strategic plan is to ensure we speak with one voice. Otherwise, we will be exploited and waste the hard-earned leverage that we have worked so hard for.

Challenge of balancing Phl interest

In a sense we will be walking on eggshells as we attempt to have equilibrium between the relations of China and the United States.

The world has evolved from having “bipolar” powers during the cold war and then a “unipolar” superpower by the late 20th century. Now we have multiple spheres of power and influence driven primarily by the spread of wealth on the back of global economic integration. This has complicated country-to-country relationships, to say the least. The intertwine of economic and security relations between China and the US makes for a complex relationship.

As we look to the future, we need to reflect on the past. This year we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Philippine-US bilateral relations, a relationship that has withstood our respective challenges – including the trend toward multi-polarity – on a sustained and beneficial basis.