The pitfalls of bilateral negotiations with China
This refers to the many proposals to negotiate with China for a settlement of the West Philippine Sea controversy. There is a limit to negotiations. If negotiation were a cure-all for international disputes, then there would be no wars.
The major hurdle in negotiations is: What is the point of reference or starting point for the negotiations? In the present dispute, is it a) the current status quo, with China in possession of the artificially built islands or b) the status quo ante, that is before China started constructing the artificial islands? If we accept the current status quo, we are already losers; China will simply stalemate the negotiations. On the other hand, if the starting point is the status quo ante, then it will be for us to stalemate the negotiations.
All those advocating negotiations should spell out the starting point for their proposals. As noted, the problem is analogous to a track competition wherein the contestants cannot agree on the location of the starting gate. For this reason, with the position of the parties too far apart, negotiations will be futile.
If we negotiate bilaterally with China, there’s the danger that she concedes to us all the areas contested by the other claimants (Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan). When China meets with the other claimants, she will in turn cede to them the areas which we now possess like Ayungin Shoal and Kalayaan Island. In other words, China will make the other claimants quarrel with each other, with Beijing acting as the referee.
A word of caution, too: Negotiations between the lion and the rabbit will have a predictable result, the rabbit will end up in the stomach of the lion. If we negotiate one-on-one with Beijing, she can bully us due to the disparity in size of our Armed Forces. Thus, it is better to negotiate this issue in concert with our Asean partners. This is also a reminder that if we negotiate with China bilaterally we will break ranks with our Asean partners. Isolation from the Asean is something we can ill-afford.
We referred the dispute to the UN Arbitration Tribunal on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, based on the premise that bilateral negotiations with China are futile. Every time our top officials state that we will negotiate with China bilaterally, we are undermining our case before the United Nations. We should at the very least, let the United Nations decide the issue. If we engage China in bilateral talks now, it will petition the UN tribunal to shelve our claim since we are already negotiating.
As a gentle reminder to the incoming Duterte administration, there is the dictum that “Diplomacy stops at the water’s edge,” meaning, there should be continuity in our diplomatic position. Like all other nations, we have permanent national interests. The Duterte administration has a mandate for change from our people; but this should not include drastic changes in our foreign policy.
—HERMENEGILDO C. CRUZ, retired ambassador, [email protected]
