Groping in the dark

It was certainly reassuring that following his recent visit to Washington, DC,  Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin told the public that the United States would honor its 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, even as it need not necessarily take sides in the Philippine-China dispute over the Scarborough Shoal. However, I was confused—in fact, a bit bothered—when I read the related columns of Amando Doronila (“US assures PH of assistance,” Inquirer, 5/11/12) and of Rigoberto Tiglao (“Psst… US isn’t with Unclos,” Inquirer, 5/10/11).

On the first column, Doronila quoted Gazmin as saying he understood that the assurance of assistance to the Philippines “includes attacks against island territories in the Pacific.” I find that statement vague. I wonder if that was what Gazmin had exactly said, or wasn’t it rather something like it “includes attacks against island territories in the West Philippine Sea,” where the contested shoal is situated?  My common sense readily tells me that the first statement should necessarily go without saying, whereas the second is what we truly need and be categorically assured of—since the Mutual Defense Treaty indeed specifically covers only armed attacks that happen inside the Pacific Area, not anywhere else. Why is that so unclear to me? Of course, nothing prevents either party to the treaty to extend the mutual defense agreement beyond the Pacific, such as to include the West Philippine Sea. But can we really rely on that, which is more optional than mandatory?

On the second, Tiglao asserts that the United States, China and the Philippines are among the 34 nations that did not ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). All three, therefore, do not officially recognize it. If this is true, then China may not be faulted for refusing to go along with the Philippines to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Itlos) and submit the territorial dispute to voluntarily arbitration. This is especially so, given that the jurisdiction of the Itlos is essentially dependent on the mutual consent of the contrasting parties. And if it’s true, isn’t it highly imprudent, if not illogical, for this nation to still seek canopy under the Unclos which, in the first place, it did not officially recognize?

But chances are, Tiglao’s assertion may be wrong. It then behooves the government to clearly verify it and all other vague parameters, for that matter, first before deciding on what to do. Well, as I see it, that seems to be practically groping in the dark on whether to keep its diplomatic relations with China, or to prepare to go to war.

—RUDY L. CORONEL,

[email protected]