‘A pyrrhic victory’

The Philippines may have won its case on the Spratlys before he UN tribunal but it was a pyrrhic victory. Pyrrhic victory is defined in dictionaries as one “that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.”

I cannot include all the factors and points taken up by the court in its decision. But the decision takes for granted that the tribunal had the power to decide on sovereignty of pieces of land. The decision has not settled the conflict. At worst it has only made it more difficult by a third party deciding on a conflict that could have been better settled between the parties involved.

The real victor is not the Philippines but the US pushing for the UN tribunal to decide against China, a growing world power and rival. The Philippines was used for its pivot to Asia and to retain its supremacy in the region than it was for “the rule of law” it claimed. The US used the Philippines to take China to the Tribunal for its own interest. It varied from “freedom of navigation” to “determining fishing rights.” But the real issue was the struggle for hegemony between the US and China in our region.

It may be useful to note that the issue of fishing rights was settled between China and Vietnam by creating an administration to regulate a common activity. As the fishermen themselves will tell you they had been fishing there for generations and until the conflict were friends. “We even ate together” said the fishermen before the conflict. “What is the use of winning a pyrrhic victory?

Happily, Rodrigo Duterte’ was president by the time the decision came. The incompetent former president, Benigno Aquino III, was a useful tool for the cause of US hegemony. Even before the tribunal’s decision the Chinese ambassador and the Philippine president met and discussed how the Philippines will handle the Spratly (West Philippine Sea issue). That was mature diplomacy. President Duterte said if the tribunal’s ruling is favorable to the Philippines, let’s talk with China. “We are not prepared to go to war.”

Moreover, the ruling also does not settle the entire dispute as it involves other claims to islands, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

Philippine Ambassador Alberto A. Encomienda sent me what he calls a monograph on “The South China Sea Issues and Related Core Interests of the Philippines.”

Encomienda is probably the most knowledgeable Filipino diplomat on the subject but has been shunned by the Department of Foreign Affairs as being pro-China.

In a dinner I hosted for Amal Clooney when she came to Manila, I seated Ambassador Encomienda on one side next to her, and, on the other, Mr. Kang who was the political attaché of the Vietnamese embassy. Our conversation was how to bring together the Vietnamese and Philippine positions closer on the issues of the conflict.

Amal told us her work as a lawyer included other areas of international law. Among the cases she had handled was Cambodia vs Thailand, requesting for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear. She also represented Cambodia in inter-state territorial claim before the International Court of Justice.

We had an interesting conversation. At the time I thought it would be interesting if we could get her firm Doughty Chambers to advise us on the South China Sea conflict.

This was her answer: “It is a bit complicated because while Ambassador Encomienda’s group is an NGO, the South China Sea is a problem of the government that is handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Solicitor-General. However, we might be able to start the work now… and we should be ready.”

Unfortunately, the Philippines has a shortsighted policy regarding its relations with China. It failed to see the bigger picture. The Vietnamese, who also have territorial disputes with China, showed themselves to be more practical.

Their disputes did not prevent Vietnam’s Communist Party Secretary-General Nguyen Phu Trong and China’s President Xi Jinping from signing a dozen cooperation agreements covering party-to-party relations, investment, infrastructure, culture and a bank loan worth $200 million from China Development Bank to the Bank of Investment and Development of Vietnam.

The Xinhua News Agency commented the settlement of their territorial disputes depend on “the two neighbors’ will and ability to properly manage their differences” and not allow the outside world to interfere.

This “trade-and-commerce” approach by Vietnam towards China is what I had been advocating in my past columns on how best to deal with the PhilippineChina dispute. Our territorial dispute can be put in the backburner by concentrating on trade, commerce, and investment opportunities that benefit both countries.

It is good there are cooler heads that have said we should return to the negotiating table with China, and take advantage of the ruling of the Court for our mutual benefit. We should have worked on trade and development and settle the ownership issue later like the other claimants did. From the start bilateral negotiations was the more commendable action put forward by the late Deng Xiaoping.