Misplaced sense of patriotism?

BROWSING the news Monday, I ran across a banner story of a daily, quoting President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. asking China to adhere to the international law governing the South China Sea. Specifically, he was referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

The story was just fine as the Chief Executive was raising the need to avoid tension in the South China Sea, being one of the most important trading routes in the world — until the story touched on the issue of the 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the Netherlands, which ruled in favor of the country’s claims in the “West Philippine Sea.”

It even stated that China rejected the arbitral ruling and stood by its historic nine-dash line claim.

Two things need to be clarified here: the PCA ruling and the use of the term “West Philippine Sea.”

Let’s tackle the issue of the use of the term “West Philippine Sea” first.

It was the administration of the late Noynoy Aquino 3rd which first used the term “West Philippine Sea” in 2011 which, according to his advisers, symbolizes our disagreement with China’s sovereignty claim over the whole South China Sea.

In the same year, Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello filed a bill in Congress urging the government to look into the process of changing the name of the South China Sea to Western Philippine Sea. This resulted in then President Aquino issuing Administrative Order 29 naming “The West Philippine Sea of the Republic of The Philippines, And For Other Purposes” on Sept. 5, 2012.

Unfortunately, to date, we are the only ones using the term “West Philippine Sea” as this has not been recognized by the international community. In fact, other claimants in the disputed territory still use the term “South China Sea” as this has been the internationally recognized name of the area since time immemorial. Even the intent — “symbolize disagreement with China’s sovereignty claim …” betrays the former administration’s adventurous tendencies. Didn’t it send our outdated warships to the contested islands as if it was provoking war?

If the intention is really to assert our claim to the territory, why then, why not also rename the Pacific Ocean to East Philippine Sea to emphasize our claim to the Benham Rise?

With regard to the PCA ruling, it is but a myth that we emerged victorious in its 2016 decision.

First, the PCA is not a UN body but a mere institution renting an office in The Hague. Thus, any ruling its office will render will not be binding as it cannot oblige the UN to enforce its ruling.

Of course, China would reject its ruling because the PCA has no legal ground to stand on. It is not even clear in what capacity it is conducting arbitration if it has no police power to enforce its ruling.

Thus, as friend Herman Laurel puts it, “not even a single inch of island, a grain of sand, a drop of seawater, was gained from The Hague’s fraudulent panel led by American lawyers paid for by Filipino taxpayers to the tune of half-a-billion pesos of still unaccounted funds from the National Treasury.”

So, for those dreaming that we can lay ownership to the disputed territories on the basis of the PCA ruling, better wake up. There was no arbitration conducted as China refused to participate. How can one arbitrate if there is only one party present? We even have to pay for China’s counterpart fee.

BBM was specific. He referred to the Unclos to serve as the basis in resolving the territorial dispute. Unfortunately, some entities — individuals, groups and even media outlets — still resort to using the term “West Philippine” Sea which only we recognize, and refer to the PCA ruling as the basis of our ownership of the disputed territories as if to rally the people to reclaim those areas at all costs, in the name of patriotism.

We are no longer living in the medieval age and the era before that where territorial disputes were settled through war. Nothing beats diplomacy. And it always beats war.

We can pursue, and we need to pursue our claims to some of the islands in the contested areas but not through giving our people false hopes and a false sense of patriotism.