IN “The Sound of Music,” the Mother Abbess and her advisers could sing about dealing with Maria, their recalcitrant and headstrong novice. But tensions between the Philippines and China are so high at the moment; only shrill voices of accusation and counteraccusation are what dominate these days.
It would be wrong for us Filipinos to apologize. I have neither respect nor tolerance, in fact, for those who, in the ongoing dispute with China, advance the position that it is we who should stand down, restrain ourselves, and hold back against exacerbating the situation.
This is shameless cowardice and an abominable failure of principle. Were our claims nebulous and our position disputed, the advice that we pull our punches would make some sense. But our claims are clear, and they are neither arbitrary nor conjectural. A competent tribunal has passed upon them and has ruled in our favor. China does not recognize the judgment, but since when has the refusal of a losing party to accept a judgment been a compelling legal argument against it?
Equally important is the fact that though it is our maritime zones that are at stake, other countries recognize the legitimacy of our position, and in the context of the international legal order, this counts for much. Japan, Australia and the United States, among others and in different ways, have signaled their support for the Philippines’ position, and fighter planes have taken to the skies and men-of-war to the disputed waters to underscore the point. The emergence of SQUAD leaves no doubt about this!
China has never been a peaceful neighbor. It has been at peace only whenever it has menaced its neighbors into servile silence. It has an ongoing boundary dispute with India. It claims that Taiwan is a breakaway province and has threatened to retake it by force, if necessary, by 2027 — in blatant disregard of the right of the Taiwanese people to self-determination. It contests the territorial boundaries of some republics that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and, besides the absurdly capacious claim it makes over the West Philippine Sea, it contests the Philippines’ claim to the Kalayaan Island Group.
You never protect the international order by compromising on legality, and while this might seem like an inordinate reliance on the law, frankly, we have no alternative to a world order under a regime of law. Fundamental to international law is its unique character — it cannot be laid down by any sovereignty above States, each of which is sovereign, and all of which are — at least in principle — sovereignly equal. And so it is that international law is the law that the states themselves decide will bind them. Traditionally, this has meant reliance on convention, custom evidencing a practice taken to have the force of law and principles of law generally recognized by the world’s legal system. This being the nature of international law, no state can freely elect to set it aside precisely because it is the only guarantee that the military or economic might of a state does not grant it power and domination over others! Detract from that elementary principle, and we are back to wars of domination and colonial occupation.
It is for the executive branch of government — particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs — to explore pacific avenues toward the resolution of disputes, and the de-escalation of tensions is a proper consideration. But if this means being less assertive of our claims or, worse, renouncing them in favor of some kind of “joint use” — a maritime version of condominium — this would be nothing short of a betrayal of the interests of the Philippines and a clear violation of our Constitution that not only defines our territory, but also provides that the resources within the maritime zones that we can rightfully claim should be reserved exclusively for the enjoyment of the people of the Philippines — and for generations to come!
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph