Resolving PH-China maritime dispute HARVARD VERITAS

CHINA rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling in favor of the Philippines in our maritime dispute over certain features in the South China Sea. China based its claim to the islands in the Spratlys based on their long history, claiming that they discovered those islands way back in the 13th century and gave names to them (i.e., Nansha for what we call the Spratlys and Shisha for what others call the Paracels); and based on international law, the country that made the discovery and gave names to places has the right to sovereignty. China rejected the PCA ruling on the ground that the PCA has no jurisdiction to rule on sovereignty issues; the so-called arbitration is no arbitration at all because arbitration involves two parties willing to be arbitrated, which is lacking

Philippine alone; and, that the PCA at The Hague is not part of the United Nations at all.

So, China has rejected the PCA ruling and is ready to go to war if any country were to forcibly evict

has created in the South China Sea. When the US attempted to enforce the PCA ruling by sending two aircraft carrier strike groups to the South China Sea, China issued a challenge to the US Navy commander of that task force. And for

the US reluctantly withdrew.

Why will China go to the extent of waging war — even a nuclear war — to defend its claims in the South China Sea? The answer could be summed up in one word: survival. China built those

China Sea, three of which have 3- kilometer- long runways, to prevent the US and it allies from blockading the Malacca Strait and other minor straits in the area (i.e., Sunda, Lombok, Makassar) where China’s oil and traded goods to the Persian Gulf, Europe and Africa pass. Since 2005, the US and Australia have been conducting biennial exercises dubbed the “Talisman Saber” to rehearse various ways of blockading the Malacca choke-points. In the latest naval exercises, Japan and New Zealand joined the exercises designed to put into practice the Mahan Doctrine: “control the oceans by controlling the choke- points.” True enough, blockading the Malacca Strait will force China’s entire economy to grind to a halt. China realized this “Malacca dilemma” early on when the US and allies started their “Talisman Saber” naval exercises.

So, China started building those artificial islands in the South China Sea in 2013 and basically a geographical disadvantage into a geographical advantage. Although there is a saying that geography is immutable, China altered its geography by constructing those

its allies will think twice before launching any naval blockade in the Malacca Strait. The moment the US launches a real naval blockade in those choke points, China

- siles, J-20 stealth aircraft and air defense missile systems to those

accommodate more war materials than all of the US aircraft carrier strike groups and those of it allies combined. And any attempt to blockade the Malacca Strait or even distant- blockade anywhere in the Indian Ocean can be “Trumped.”

Another reason why the South China Sea is vital to China’s survival is the Manila Trench that passes near the Scarborough Shoal where US nuclear Ohio-class submarines can maneuver surreptitiously from Subic Bay in the Philippines and approach China’s east coast for a

carries 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, each with a range of 2,500 kilometers and carrying a 200-kiloton warhead — more than 10 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Four of such US subma

on China’s east coast where most of China’s 1.4 billion population and industrial base are located, can drive the Chinese nation and civilization to extinction. To guard

that leaves China with no time to react, China took control of the Scarborough Shoal, as this will ensure its very survival.

Knowing these key issues of survival facing our neighbor, how then can we proceed in resolving the Philippines’ maritime dispute with China? Our leaders should consider three basic steps.

1. Set aside the issue of sovereignty.

The Philippine’s claim to sovereignty is based on the PCA ruling of 2016. China’s claim is based on its history having discovered and given names to those islands, supported by international law. Even if the Philippines and China debate and argue for a hundred, nay, even in a thousand years, “never the twain shall meet.” And this will only lead eventually to

war since both will hold on to their respective positions regarding sovereignty issues. So, the best way forward is the proposal of Deng Xiaoping when he was still alive: set aside the issue of sovereignty for the next hundred years (renewable if necessary), with both sides agreeing that each reserves the right to hold on to their respective positions so that no one loses face to their respective constituents.

2. Adapt a ‘win-win’ approach.

The other approach is a “win-lose” approach to the problem. A “winlose” mindset will not lead to a win for one of the parties; because the losing side will be aggrieved and will make sure that the other side will regret his triumph. For instance, if the Philippines insists on enforcing the PCA decision, who will implement it against China? Will it be the US? The latter tried in 2016, but was forced to withdraw when China stood its ground. And China cannot with

because to them, those islands spell their very survival. If Philippine leaders follow the suggestions of former ambassador to the US Albert del Rosario and Senior Justice Antonio Carpio, China will simply say “No” and we don’t get a single drop of oil, or cubic feet of

from the disputed territory. This will be the ultimate outcome of the Carpio/del Rosario “win-lose” approach or zero-sum game.

A “win-win” approach, on the other hand, is a negotiating stance wherein both sides sit down and discuss how both can work together and share whatever resources are available in the area equitably. The Philippines and China have already made a good start on this whereby China agreed on joint exploration and development of oil and gas resources in the disputed area with a 60-40 sharing scheme in favor of the Philippines. Numerous joint projects can be initiated using similar “win-win” strategy.

3. Enlarge the pie.

China is now in the midst of implementing a grand infrastructure development called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a modernday revival of the ancient Silk Route covering Asia, Europe and Africa. The Philippines was once the easternmost hub of the maritime Silk Road, the ocean route of this ancient trade route that goes all the way to Madrid, Spain by land and sea routes. Goods from Guangzhou, China like porcelain, silver and silk were brought by Chinese junks to Manila. At the moment, the BRI covers only three continents: Asia, Europe and Africa. The pie can be enlarged by negotiating with China on helping the Philippines revive the ancient Galleon Trade route from Manila to Acapulco, Mexico and on to Seville in Spain. Acapulco can be connected by high-speed rail to North and South America with the help of Chinese rail technology. A port in Aparri, Cagayan can be developed into a regional maritime hub and gateway for the rest of Asean and China to the continents of North and South America. The port in Bongao, Tawi- Tawi, on the other hand, can serve as another maritime hub and gateway for Asean and China to Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). It is a win for China because the BRI will be expanded to six continents instead of three. It is a win for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) because it will be connected to trade infrastructures that will link the Asean countries to six continents. But the Philippines will be the biggest winner of all because it will be right at the epicenter of a planetary-scale economic development that literally circumnavigates the globe.

All these will be possible if we stop squabbling and start working together as good neighbors.