Asean and the SCS conundrum

Not a few people were disappointed that the leaders of the 10 member-states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) failed to forge a strong, united stand vis-à-vis China’s assertion of ownership and sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea (SCS).

Differing views. However, I think that such a failure was not unexpected because the member-states have divergent views and interests in the SCS. Asean decides by consensus, not by majority vote. Thus, a single negative stance would bar a decision.

The seven Asean members ringing the SCS (the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) have varying (and at times conflicting) maritime views that may be inconsistent with China’s. But some of them have strong political and economic ties with the Chinese that far outweigh their more benign SCS interests. For example, Brunei is reluctant to support our arbitral victory because a huge amount of its oil—the backbone of its economy—is imported by China. Should the latter stop, or even minimize its imports, the former’s economy may be severely affected.

To be sure, only Vietnam, which aggressively pursues its SCS claims, actively backs the enforcement, by armed force if necessary, of our arbitral victory. The others are simply not keen on supporting it and on antagonizing China.

On the other hand, the Asean members with no SCS borders (Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) have no maritime claims. However, they are not ready to risk their thriving political, economic and aid relationships with their powerful northern neighbor.

Self-interest is every nation’s paramount concern. Indeed, in claiming the Kalayaan Island Group in the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines is advancing its own self-interest.

Rule of law. As I wrote last Sunday, the Philippine claim was begun by President Ferdinand Marcos when the Philippine delegation to the law of the sea conferences was able to convince the much more numerous “coastal” states to agree to 1) the complicated “archipelagic principles” in computing the baselines from which to measure the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelves of “mid-ocean” states, and 2) the much longer boundaries of these zones compared with the traditional 3-mile limit spelled out long ago by Hugo Grotius, the father of international law.

Our claim would have prescribed and lapsed had it not been for the last-minute passage of Republic Act No. 9522 in 2009 (during the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) which defined our country’s baselines.

In turn, President Benigno Aquino III’s administration sought and won the arbitral award upholding the Philippine claims, thereby anchoring our position on the rule of law, on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which significantly both the Philippines and China are signatories.

Presidents Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Estrada also contributed to the safeguarding of our maritime rights, not the least of which by grounding an aging naval vessel in Ayungin Shoal.

United stand. For his part, President Duterte, sensing the sheer difficulty of enforcing the arbitral award by forcible methods, has espoused an “independent foreign policy,” befriended China and opted for direct diplomatic negotiations. He prudently added that at the “right time and occasion,” he would remind our big neighbor of our rights under the arbitral award.

My point is: No single individual can claim sole credit for protecting our maritime rights. All our presidents, regardless of their partisan or insular convictions, contributed their best to safeguard our national interest.

The SCS conundrum will linger beyond our lifetime. It cannot be fully solved in the near future. The least we can do as patriotic Filipinos is to avoid bickering and performing acts that will defeat, dilute, or waive our options and legal rights. Instead, let us unite in preserving our patrimony for future generations.

On May 4, Justice Antonio T. Carpio will formally launch his e-book, “Philippine Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea: The South China Sea Dispute,” a must-read for everyone. It can be accessed for free in the internet.

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com