KEEPING CHINA OUT OF PANATAG
Benham Rise is ours because it is ours and not because a UN body granted it to us.
In these topsy turvy times, what is remarkable becomes normal to us: a sitting Supreme Court justice advising the President on matters of foreign policy and national security. The advice itself was commonsensically workmanlike: any competent security analyst could have given it.
And definitely Justice Antonio Carpio fully knows the Judiciary’s custom of individual silence on matters of public concern. So the fact that he spoke as he did, whether the same was proper or not, or the substance effective or ill- advised, clearly indicates the gravity with which he views the situation in Panatag Shoal.
His remarks were essentially in response to President Duterte’s declaration that the country could not do anything to stop China from building structures in that area. Here, Justice Carpio is correct: the Philippines (and the Executive branch) could do something. In fact, a lot of things. Justice Carpio’s suggestions circled around the idea of stepping up patrols, the strategy’s spine being the Philippines-United States Mutual Defense Treaty. There may be merit to what he suggests.
However, this column would like to start, as usual, from the basics. First, is to recognize that the areas are our territories, which the Arbitral Tribunal’s 2016 decision supported ( not granting but supporting). Incidentally, Benham Rise is ours because it is ours and not because a UN body granted it to us. The latter recognized our claim but did not grant sovereignty to the Philippines. That distinction must be made.
Furthermore, as provided for in the Constitution’s Article II.3, the goal of the Armed Forces (of which the President is the commander-in-chief) is “to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”
This is expanded upon by Article XII. 1: “The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”
As this column stressed previously, foreign relations and definitely the maintenance of our territory are not matters solely dependent on the “wisdom” of the presidency. The Congress and (in an actual case before it) the Supreme Court) have essentially equal roles to play.
Any arrangement that the Executive branch makes with China regarding those areas is a treaty matter that the Senate is mandated to review.
Any unilateral measure that the Executive makes is subject to Congressional review and corrective legislation ( or Judicial determination).
Then there are others. Some of the suggestions I already outlined in “For a strategic, coherent Philippine foreign policy ( Business
World, 28-29 May 2016).”
Others are suggestions I made way before in lieu of filing an actual case against China: bring the matter before the UN Security Council or the General Assembly.
Yes, China is a permanent member of the UNSC and, yes, China can generate support within the UNGA. Note that China has generated support, perhaps more than the Philippines, in relation to the Arbitral Tribunal ruling, by doing the thing we should have done and that is a coordinated media plan to take advantage of the ruling’s outcome. Which we didn’t do. By going instead through the UNSC or the UNGA, we would have been able to advocate for our case in the court of world opinion, all the while preventing a situation where China can demonstrate it’s ability to ignore an international tribunal’s ruling.
We would have had the capability of waiting for a more opportune time (in terms of relative military, economic, and moral strength) before filing against China, thus leading to more options with which to take advantage of the win, while avoiding the unfortunate situation of leaving it to a fresh incoming administration to manage the consequences of the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision (which the President Aquino practically did vis-à-vis President Duterte’s team).
We should restrain our overly slavish eagerness for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. To put a not so fine point: the RCEP actually needs us more than we need it. After all, we’re already in trade deals with every member of that proposed agreement.
On the other hand, for political and strategic reasons, we should continue supporting the TransPacific Partnership (if and when the US decides to restart talks on it).
We must continue calls to revive the World Trade Organization and ensure that our trade deals conform to our domestic values of the rule of law and human rights.
But perhaps the best thing that could be done now is for the President to simply stop talking about it.
While it is laudable that he wants to inform and educate the Filipino people regarding his thought process on the matter confronting our territory, his most important audience right now is not the Filipino but China.
For China: it is actions and not words that matter.
And while President Duterte’s spontaneous foreign policy lectures may confuse the local political opposition as to his actual intent, a better mode of obfuscation against China itself is always silence.