International treaty needed to govern use of water cannons at sea
China must be condemned and held accountable for the wrong and destructive use of its coast guards’ water cannons. Recompense must also be levied for the structural and mechanical damages suffered by the Philippine vessels, including injuries to passengers, if any, when they sailed to conduct a civilian humanitarian mission at Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal recently.
There are ethics even at sea. Though still unwritten, proper and ethical use of a ship’s water cannon ought to be covered by protocols to put a stop on its use for hostile purposes. They are designed specifically for putting out fires hobbling other ships in the vast ocean, where means of traditional firefighting are unavailable. It is uncommon to utilize it to cause harm, or as a tool for harassment and, above all, to endanger lives.
There are already a number of treaties and conventions covering almost every facet of human activity that, for centuries, were tied to people’s use and enjoyment of the oceans and the seas. Among these is the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, which provides guidelines governing sea collisions. Then followed the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, as amended. Thereafter, in 1988, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, initiated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), was institutionalized and ratified by participating nations.
Interestingly, China ratified the latter treaty in 1991 that took effect the following year. Its Chapter V pertains to navigational safety with regard to an operational nature applicable in “general to all ships on all voyages.” It includes the general obligation for shipmasters to lend assistance to those in distress—not add or cause stress on any or to an already distressed ship at sea.
The whole world watched in horror when supposedly responsible coast guards ran amuck and blasted high-pressure waters that nearly crippled a Philippine Coast Guard vessel and a chartered civilian craft. To paraphrase a Biblical injunction: “What does it profit a country in grabbing an entire piece of the sea yet loses its repute?”
In light of the indiscriminate use of water cannons and blinding devices like military lasers by the China Coast Guard (CCG), it behooves responsible states to craft regulations that will govern their use of similar steps taken by the governments of Austria, Egypt, and Italy in 1986 when they successfully urged IMO to undertake a convention on the subject of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. This was meant to provide a comprehensive suppression of unlawful acts committed against the safety of maritime vessels and those that endanger human lives, including those performing their duty in connection with their work, such as among others, the coast guards, other mariners, journalists, and media practitioners.
We cannot fall, hook, line, and sinker, for the populist clamor of some, including a senator, for “a tooth for a tooth” approach in response to the thuggery shown by the CCG. It will only exacerbate the already tense situation; it will not make us any different from those whose behavior we object to.
What the times call for is the crafting of a rules-based solution in the form of a treaty that will govern the use of water cannons and other harmful vessel-bound devices at sea. The Philippines, together with similarly minded nations, could initiate a move at the IMO or before other relevant international treaty organizations to, once and for all, address the lack of rules and regulations on these areas of grave concern in a civilized manner.
Ted P. Peñaflor II,
