Set it aside, we move forward

If we set aside The Hague ruling where the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration invalidated China's Nine-Dash-Line claim and gave the country its sovereign entitlements particularly in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), then China would agree to being the junior partner in the joint oil and gas exploration at Recto Bank where the country would get 60%. According to President Duterte, this is the condition set by Chinese President Xi Jinping when they met last August in Beijing. Set aside the ruling, the project moves forward with us getting 60%.

I don't know but this seems like China asking us to set aside sovereignty. It's like telling a farm owner to set aside his rights to ownership of his farm, so he can be given 60% of whatever the farm produces. Isn't there something wrong there? It also shows that China apparently gives importance to the Philippines' winning decision, even though they repeatedly say they do not recognize it. Why ask us to set aside a decision that means nothing to them? According to The Hague decision, the country has the right to benefit from our EEZ. Recto Bank is clearly within our EEZ. If China is already considered a friend, why not proceed with the joint exploration at the same sharing percentages without any conditions? Why is China bent on hearing us say we are no longer interested in claiming our EEZ? Doesn't that pave the way for China to start building anywhere it wants, like Panatag Shoal? Like Ayungin Shoal? Like Pagasa Island?

Duterte did not say he agreed with Jinping's condition. But this is the card on the table. Does it mean that if Duterte does not agree, the joint project is scrapped? Is this a way to force Duterte to agree? But according to DFA secretary Locsin, he did not know of or read any such condition when he met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the joint exploration. Of course, Locsin just had to say something for the critics, saying, “Can’t help it if traitors try to put a treasonous spin to it. But it’s (OK), one day they’ll be assassinated with impunity; indeed to loud acclaim.” That's Locsin's take and wish.

And if Duterte had agreed to Jinping's condition, what would Locsin say? Would there be a traitor in our midst? He should have spoken to Duterte first and clarified if those statements were true or not before again threatening administration critics. If those were not in the signed MOU, what would we now make of Jinping's statements? What the Chinese president laid down is a serious condition. Setting aside the victory would be tantamount to surrendering our rights to our own EEZ, something other officials in this administration claim it will never do. Last December, DOJ secretary Guevarra said no sovereignty issues surrounded the MOU. What about now? We set this aside for 60%? I defer to my farm owner example. And why not a bigger share? If another country was involved in the joint exploration, would we also be asked to set aside the UN victory in exchange for a percentage?

Just think about it.