The South China Sea disputes

In his new book, Where in the world is the Philippines?, former Philippine foreign undersecretary Rod Severino lays out the case for urgent action by the Philippine government on matters relating to the national territory and the rising global concerns about territorial questions in our part of the world.

The author will probably be chided by some for raising uncomfortable questions about an issue that many hoped had already been put to rest long ago.  

He cannot be faulted, however, for his timing. His book comes at a time when recent international developments compel us to take a fresh look at territorial questions — especially those concerning the Spratlys in the South China Sea (SCS), to which the Philippines, China and some ASEAN neighbors are claimants.

What has provoked wide-ranging concern is the recent declaration of senior Chinese officials that “the SCS is “a core interest” of their country, and that China has “indisputable sovereignty” over this body of water.

The Chinese have been invoking “indisputable sovereignty” for some time now. “Core interest” is just another way for them of putting it. “Indisputable” sovereignty is, in fact, a mis-statement of fact, because in fact, Chinese sovereignty is disputed by most countries. China’s claims are contrary to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which China is a party.

 These statements have understandably raised much concern within ASEAN. They have thrown a different spin to regional perceptions of China as a friendly neighbor and benign power hat will not impinge on the sovereignty of nations.

ASEAN collectively has expressed its concern, and individual members have said the same.

For us in the Philippines, this calls vividly to mind our worries back in 1995 when China made incursions into Mischief Reef. I was DFA secretary at the time. And I remember saying at a meeting of the National Security Council: “Both the Philippines and China made their positions clear. Both sides remained steadfast in their claims. We demanded that China leave Mischief Reef and, as anticipated,, the Chinese stated that they have no intention of leaving Mischief Reef.” I also stated “ ...it is critical that the national consensus, particularly as voiced by the political leaders of our country, be expressed in support of the diplomatic efforts of the government.”...”The role of the President and the members of Congress, as representative of the people, the role of other agencies of government as well as responsible media and private sectors, in gathering and consolidating the nation’s resolve behind the efforts of your government on this issue has not only helped in very practical terms.” 

The issue then and now goes beyond just our shores. As the New York Times said in an editorial in April 1995, “China cannot be permitted to exercise sovereignty over the SCS because that would reduce its neighbors to vassals and allow Beijing unilateral control over the sea lanes vital to global security.” 

That was 15 years ago and much has happened. I remember a French saying: “the more things change, the more they remain the same.” The issue is still present and crucial to our national interest and the need for national resolve is more important then ever.

US concern

Significantly, the US has not been a passive or silent onlooker over these developments in our part of the world. At the annual ministerial meeting of the ASEAN regional Forum (ARF) last July 2010, Secretary Hillary Clinton created a stir when she reiterated pointedly the US position on the SCS disputes and its interest in the area.

As reported by Mr. Severino in his book, Clinton said: “The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion. We oppose the use or threat of forces by any claimant. The US supports the 2002 ASEAN-China declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea. (DoC)”

It is more than likely that the SCS issue will be raised during the visit this week to the US of Chinese president Hu Jin Tao. 

The Chinese declaration on the SCS appears to be part of China’s new strategy of “far sea defense”, which seeks to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force. The strategy is a sharp break from the traditional, narrower doctrine of preparing for war with Taiwan or defending the Chinese coast. Chinese military officials have signalled an intent to have their warships escort commercial vessels from as far as the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca, in Southeast Asia, and to help secure Chinese interests in the resource-rich South and East China Seas.

Inaction on the part of the US to this challenge would be perceived as a victory for China, something the US cannot afford in view of the growing perception that China now has the upper hand in Sino-US relations.

Need for code of conduct

These developments bring into sharp relief the urgent need for China and ASEAN to develop a code of conduct as they agreed to do nine years ago. Guidelines for the code have to be finalized according to Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa. “If we allow the situation to remain dormant and inactive, it can create unnecessary complications,” he said.

A major roadblock to such a code of conduct is Beijing’s reluctance to deal with ASEAN collectively on the issue. Beijing wants the matter discussed bilaterally with ASEAN members that have territorial claims. But ASEAN as a whole wants to speak as a group.

Almonte and Mendoza share their views

At the launching of Severino’s book, two gentlemen with first-hand knowledge of the issues in the SCS disputes attended and shared their views with the assembled gathering, which included as guest of honor former President Fidel V. Ramos. I refer to former NSC secretary-general Gen. Jose Almonte, and the eminent lawyer and former justice secretary Estelito Mendoza.

As is his style, General Almonte expressed his views succinctly and pointedly. He said: “given the realities in the region today, the US and China must really come to terms, not just with the evolving situation but come to terms with what they feel are their interests and that of the interests of the rest of the world. When China claimed last July that the SCS is their core interest, it means that their claim of sovereignty in the region is not negotiable like their claim of sovereignty in Taiwan and Tibet. Now, if you look at the map, the SCS is really a maritime heartland of the region. Anyone who controls that body of water will control both insular and peninsular South East Asia. And if that happens, whoever controls that will have an influence, heavily, in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. If we are not careful, we will become a province of China.”    

He concluded by saying “My concern is this. I am concerned that I haven’t heard anything from our policy makers to express any concern about this situation. The ASEAN position has converged with the US position in this part of the world and I think that’s the only reason why China has taken one step backward, and agreed to talk again about the DoC, but let me say this, China will never agree to make DoC a binding agreement…”

Secretary Mendoza, for his part, gave a brief on the passage of UNCLOS at the UN and the passage of our baselines law during the last Congress.

He disclosed that there are outstanding recommendations to the Executive on how we Filipinos can move forward on the issue. “But nothing has been done about those,” he said “I don’t think they have even been read by the Executive Secretary who chairs the Committee. So what is important is to get President Aquino’s interest in this problem. What is necessary is for him to assemble a group of advisers and then formulate a national position on this issue so that we can then debate and discuss with other countries. We are not ready for this at this point in time. But we must be ready quickly and soon.”

Need for action and resolve

“Ready quickly and soon” could very well be the mantra for our government and the nation in dealing with the matter at hand.

It’s overwhelmingly clear that many in government have hardly started to deal with the issues, or even to seriously think about them.

The overarching importance of the SCS question is clear from even a cursory review of what’s being said within ASEAN, and what’s being said in Beijing and Washington.

Things are developing in a way that makes it very important for us to get our act together and to act with resolve. We are, let’s face it, a key party to this major international debate and dispute. As a nation with a clear interest in the SCS and as one of the claimants to the Spratlys, we must prepare ourselves for the rigors of supporting our claim and defending our interest. We cannot go to the conference table unprepared, let alone confused as to what we really want.

Without doubt, nothing much will move unless the Executive takes the lead. No doubt also, Congress must do its part in crafting the national position and interpreting the national interest. And there is a role also for the public and the media to play in the resolution of this debate.

At the end of the day, everything comes down to what is best for our country and our people. Absent any action and resolve on our part, other countries might well decide what is best for us.