Compromise needed in the Philippines over its South China Sea policy
Mark J. Valencia says the Philippines needs to find some balance in its South China Sea claims – both with Beijing and in its own domestic politics, to prevent the dispute between idealists and realists from paralysing the country
But China disagrees. It refused to participate in the arbitral proceedings or to accept the result. That means China’s claims to the area and the features and resources within it still stand, and it has made clear it will defend them to the full – against the Philippines and anyone else. Indeed, its recent actions and words regarding the South China Sea directly defy the arbitration decision and rival claims. In sum, China – like big powers before it – has showed it can and will defy international law.
How China is quietly increasing its ability to wage war at sea
He argues that anything short of China’s presumably public recognition of Philippine claims and sovereignty over the area would violate the Philippine constitution.
But Carpio also acknowledges that “war is not an option”, and clings to the hope that domestic and international opprobrium will change China’s policy, which is not realistic in an age when norms and institutions like international law are in flux. The alternative to Duterte’s policy would probably be no access to its own resources and crippling economic, political and even military punishment by China.
In practice, the two sides may not be amendable to compromise. Idealists maintain that implementation of international law – the arbitration decision – China’s prior recognition of it, and Philippine sovereignty, are sine qua non. Realists – the Duterte administration – see the situation as requiring deft hedging and the art of delay until time is more ripe for resolution within existing international law. They do not see the need for such recognition to be immediate and overt.
Whether it’s trade, Taiwan or the South China Sea, the US doesn’t hold a winning hand against China
Certainly, any joint development arrangement must contain a clause that nothing in the agreement constitutes recognition of the validity of each others’ claim.
China and the Philippines chart the course towards a calmer South China Sea
Nevertheless, the Duterte administration should be careful not to prejudice its claims or rights. It should continue to protest privately or publicly when it believes China has violated any understanding or the details of the arbitration result itself. It should avoid making any official statement or taking any action that undermines its claims, including acknowledging or even implying that any area that legally belongs to it is “disputed”. Doing so could, in the long term, legally weaken its claim and the status of the arbitration ruling itself. However, the arbitration panel’s ruling is now part of international law and not likely to change easily or quickly.
The two schools of thought should meet and discuss possible ways to resolve this conundrum. This would be better than allowing the problem to split the Filipino political class to the core. Doing so would be domestically dysfunctional and counterproductive, and would provide an opportunity for outsiders to interfere in the Philippine political system.
All concerned should not – in Voltaire’s wise words – “make perfect the enemy of the good”.
Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China