HAS China succeeded in pushing us to embrace its strategy in the South China Sea? This is one question that should be asked following Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano’s response to a joint statement by the United States, Australia and Japan that called on the Philippines and China to abide by the ruling of the arbitral tribunal that invalidated the latter’s claim over almost the entire sea.
“The ministers called on China and the Philippines to abide by the arbitral tribunal’s 2016 award in the Philippines-China arbitration, as it is final and legally binding on both parties,” the statement said. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono attended a trilateral dialogue on the sidelines of the recently held East Asia Summit and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Regional Forum.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano in response told the three countries not to dip their fingers in the Philippines’ sovereignty dispute with China over a portion of the South China Sea. “We appreciate not being told what to do because we are a sovereign nation,” he said.
Under normal circumstances, Cayetano would have been applauded for the manner his response was formulated. Indeed, the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines is between China and the Philippines.” Outsiders should not dictate to us how we would like to resolve the dispute. It’s just like when a husband quarrels with his wife. Neighbors are expected not to interfere. Which, interestingly, is the same point China has been raising through the years.
China’s strategy is actually to contain the problem among the disputants and, by extension, the regional grouping where the disputants belong, in our case Asean. This is why when a code of conduct in the South China Sea was discussed in the recent Asean forum, China wanted to make sure that the idea that outsiders should not be allowed to interfere in the dispute would not be forgotten.
But we already know what will happen if this setup is put in place. China is economically and militarily superior to the countries it has territorial disputes with. The talks wouldn’t therefore be between equals. It would be like having the school bully and the bullied discuss whatever differences they may have. Who do you think would dictate the terms. This is why the preferred setup in cases like that is to hold the talks in front of the school principal.
Again, under normal circumstances, Cayetano’s call for non-interference would be applauded. But the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China is far from being normal. Ranged against China, we are but a puny state. Which means that it can do everything without us being able to put up a decent enough resistance. In this situation, we need equalizers: international laws and world opinion. Translation: we desperately need outside help.
Which reminds me of an admonition by the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without danger of defeat.”