Xi’s one-way bromance with Duterte, and the great ‘debate’
Palace spokesman Harry Roque must be feeling unhappily isolated when his challenge to debate with former Supreme court Justice antonio carpio and Vice President leni Robredo on the issue of china’s incursions into our maritime territories was met merely with ridicule on social media.
His boss President Duterte has thrown him a virtual hot potato when he was designated to substitute in the debate with Carpio. Piqued by the former chief justice’s criticisms on his handling of the West Philippine Sea issue, Duterte earlier challenged Carpio to a debate. Carpio readily said anytime, anywhere at the president’s convenience. Probably realizing that he must have shot himself in the foot, Duterte’s advisers bailed him out. The president cannot engage an ordinary lawyer into a debate, they chorused, saying that doing so would be prejudicial to the office of the president. In short, they advised Duterte to back out from the ‘fight’ he himself had instigated, resulting in the presidential mouthpiece being pushed into the ‘ring’. Meanwhile, the hashtag #Duterte Duwag (“Duterte, a coward”) continues to trend, as of this writing.
For former commissioner and lawmaker Homobono Adaza, the president deserves the social media mockery. In his Manila Times column, Adaza cited an incident in 2013 between Duterte and broadcaster Waldy Carbonnell—who as part of the National Press Club (NPC) team probing the killing of broadcaster Jun Pala (a leader of the anti-communist group Alsa Masa) in 2003—flew from Manila to Davao to do his job. Pissed, the then Davao mayor challenged Waldy to a gun duel within the vicinity of the Davao City Hall. The challenge was for Waldy to be at the venue “...[a]t 9 o’clock in the morning [and] bring two magazines for his pistol…with Duterte having only two bullets.”
Waldy came on time, but nowhere, reports said then, was even the shadow of Duterte seen. “So Waldy left with media members, while the bravest boy-man Duterte had turned tails,” Adaza recounted.
It was only right for Carpio and Robredo to ignore Roque’s challenge. Political pundits claim that the spokesperson merely wants to execute Duterte’s poorly written playbook: rehash the issue of who was to blame for China’s illegal occupation of the Scarborough Shoal and shift all the blame to the previous administration.
Flashback in 2012, the Philippine Navy’s BRP Gregorio Del Pilar got entangled into a standoff with Chinese surveillance ships which came to the defense of Chinese fishermen who were illegally fishing in Scarborough Shoal. To bring down the tension, the US brokered a deal in which both parties agreed to leave. The Philippines acquiesced and the country’s biggest warship was pulled out of the area. Former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario recalled it was Chinese President Xi Jinping who “deceitfully breached” the agreement to withdraw all ships on both sides from the Scarborough Shoal: “We withdrew while Beijing did not. Until now, China refuses to withdraw its vessels to the prejudice of the Filipino people.” This incident was the basis for the country’s filing of an arbitration case against China before the Un-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration which the Philippines won.
Blaming the previous administration for China’s deceit? Why should we be surprised? Time and again, Duterte has professed his love for Xi. Didn’t Duterte publicly declare that no way would Xi or China allow the Philippine Military to oust him? We could only guess what Xi had promised to Duterte, but the president’s pro-china stance says a mouthful.
Duterte’s cozying up to China in the guise of independent foreign policy has been detrimental to our national interest. It has emboldened China’s militia, disguised as fishermen, to deploy hundreds of Chinese ships and swarm the Julian Felipe Reef to the impairment of Filipino fishermen. Although the military establishment and the foreign affairs department have been firing off diplomatic protests almost on a daily basis, Duterte has refused to condemn China’s incursion into waters which are well within the Philippine economic zone, as spelled out in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Doing so, Duterte said, would mean a war that the Philippines is sure to lose. But have we seen China wage a war against Indonesia and Vietnam which have gallantly defended their aquatic resources against Chinese intrusions? Duterte’s myopic view is not only detrimental to the country’s own interests, but also possible impeachable offenses, according to Carpio.
For me, China is not the friend that Duterte would have us believe. His bromance with Xi is one-sided. China has only its own interest to protect. Its ulterior motive is world dominance, and the Philippines happens to be a big part of the puzzle that needs to be put in place to achieve its long-term goal. We are China’s trophy in its growing tussle with the United States. Duterte gushes at China’s benevolence, but doesn’t (or refuses to) see the catch. He talks about investments and Covid-19 vaccine donations, which he says China has ‘graciously’ given to the country. But China demands a big price for all of these: our sovereignty. The way it debt-traps smaller countries through its Belt and Road Initiative—djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Montenegro, the Maldives, Pakistan and Tajikistan—already raises a red flag. It proves to me that what China gives with its right hand is always shadowed by its left.
Now, Duterte is saying that the arbitral ruling which we won in 2016 and nullified China’s fictional nine-dash line—the very basis of its claim on the entire West Philippine Sea—is just a piece of paper. Is he saying that our land titles, birth certificates, marriage licenses, income tax returns, and many more legal obligations inked in paper are mere waste-basket fodder? An international court’s decision is so much more than a piece of paper. It is anchored on the communal contract that countries agree on which require them to honor, protect and abide by a certain conduct that is respected among the international community. China’s refusal to abide by it practically isolates it from the community of nations. Duterte could have used this ‘piece of paper’ to rally other countries similarly bullied by China.
In an interview on Monday, May 10, Carpio said Duterte’s position is a betrayal of public trust and national interest. He stresses that “Duterte’s words could have consequences for the Philippines, and cost the country its own territory,” adding that “Duterte’s repeated claims [that] China was in possession of the West Philippine Sea is dangerous, especially if China took Duterte’s word for it.” Duterte’s silence, he explains, is sending the “wrong signals” to Beijing.
According to Carpio, “If [the president] makes a statement adverse to his nation, on an ongoing dispute, that statement binds his nation, if accepted by the other country.… That is a principle in international law, and that has been repeatedly upheld in international tribunals because the head of state, the President, or even the foreign minister, can bind the country with its pronouncements, and if these pronouncements are adverse admissions against interest, this will bind the country if accepted by the other party.”
The danger is very real; more so if our leaders choose to sleep with the enemy.