‘Downers’ on PH’s sea claims
The Philippines has gained much publicity and international support for its position vis-à-vis China in the ongoing maritime disputes over shoals, reefs and islets in the South China Sea. Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario himself was in Brussels not long ago to present the Philippine case before a European audience.
And last July 30, European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton, after a meeting with Secretary Del Rosario here in Manila, further underscored the fact that “the EU supported the Philippine arbitration case in the UN.”( “No mention of sea row with China good—DFA” Front Page, 7/30/14). Del Rosario added that the Philippines has a “triple action plan” that it will present at the Asean foreign ministers’ meeting in Burma next week (Aug. 8-10), which should lead to lessened tensions and a more stable situation in the disputed areas. Much earlier, US President Barack Obama reiterated US support for the Philippine arbitration plan before the United Nations.
Indeed, the Philippines appears to have a coherent diplomatic tack on the maritime issue.
But as we move forward, we should recognize that not everyone is, or can be, on our side and accept our position. In recent months, two noted geostrategists in the United States have come out with books that place the Philippines in a not favorable light on the South China Sea maritime disputes. Geoff Dyer, in his book “The Contest of the Century,” writes: “A Vietnamese official commented that ‘we have been coping with China for 2,000 years… we know exactly how to deal with them.’ The comments were partly aimed at the (Philippines) which was viewed in many quarters as having provoked a fight with Beijing it could not win.” (This was a reference to the Scarborough Shoal standoff in April to June 2012. Most Filipinos will likely be surprised with this revelation as I was.)
Robert D. Kaplan is well-known in the field of geopolitics and has traveled extensively to Asia, including four visits to the Philippines. In his most recent book titled “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific” (Random House, 2014), he writes: “A top US official told me…. the (Philippines) has few cards to play despite that country’s ingenious boisterousness and incendiary statements.” These are just selected passages that are relevant to the issue at hand. But Kaplan has a whole chapter devoted to the Philippines titled “America’s Colonial Burden.” Its title is revealing enough; reacting to it will entail another article by itself.
What becomes a matter of concern to enlightened and concerned citizens, as the above passages show, is the gap between reality and rhetoric, between the actual situation on the ground—or the sea, rather—and diplomatic talk. Diplomacy is patient and painstaking work. So is analysis. But analysis is not constrained by nuances and niceties to which diplomacy is. Both are conveyed by media and, in the end, we concerned citizens have to discern all that the media dish out and, after cool and calm reflection, arrive at our own respective conclusions.
—MARIANO S. JAVIER,
