Abstention, a complex decision
While the decision looked perfectly all right, it’s the future repercussions of this abstention that could be a cause for concern.
Daily TribuneWhile the decision looked perfectly all right, it’s the future repercussions of this abstention that could be a cause for concern.
The Philippines' decision to abstain from voting in the proposed United Nations resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war has raised questions and concerns about the country's diplomatic stance, particularly as it pertains to its interests in the South China Sea and the West Philippine Sea territorial disputes.
Given the potential consequences of the WPS issue, was it the right course of action?
The Philippine delegation, led by Ambassador Antonio Manuel Lagdameo, the Philippines' Permanent Representative to the UN, recognized the violence against the civilians caught up in the war. The country also welcomed the opening of a humanitarian corridor to Egypt and expressed a desire for foreign nationals — including Filipinos still in Gaza — to be allowed to use the Rafah crossing to move out of the besieged region.
"Overall, it expresses the grave concern of the international community over the situation, which the Philippines genuinely shares," Lagdameo said in his statement during the 10th Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Friday, 27 October.
The Philippines, however, chose to abstain from the call for an aid truce, citing Israel's right to self-defense after the 7 October Hamas "terrorist attack," which was not mentioned or condemned in the resolution.
Even with the Philippines abstaining from the vote, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for the passage of the resolution drafted by Arab states. It passed to a round of applause with 120 votes in favor, while 45 abstained and 14 — including Israel and the United States — voted no. A two-thirds majority was needed for the resolution to pass, in which abstentions do not count.
While the decision looked perfectly all right, the future repercussions of this abstention could be a cause for concern. The resolution, experts say, is not binding but carries political weight.
In international diplomacy, abstaining from a vote is a legitimate option, and nations choose to do so for various reasons. Abstention can be a strategic move when a country believes that taking a clear position may not align with its national interests or diplomatic objectives.
In the case of the Philippines, the decision to abstain could be rooted in several factors, including its relationships with key international players, especially the United States and China, its pursuit of an independent foreign policy, and its territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
The Philippines' decision to abstain must be seen in this light. The country faced a difficult choice between aligning with the international community's call for a ceasefire and considering the implications of its vote on its relations with China. However, in a world where global politics and diplomacy are intricately interwoven, nations often have to make difficult decisions to safeguard their interests and maintain their diplomatic relationships.
It is essential to consider, too, the potential consequences of this decision. By abstaining from the vote, the Philippines may have strained its relationships with other nations that supported the resolution. It is worth noting that approximately 120 countries voted in favor of the ceasefire, and these same countries could play a significant role in future decisions related to the Philippines' territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
The Philippines has consistently sought international support for its claims in the South China Sea and the implementation of the arbitral tribunal's ruling. By abstaining from this vote, it might have raised questions about its commitment to international cooperation and adherence to the rule of law. This could potentially affect its ability to garner future support on the WPS issue.
It is imperative for the Philippines, therefore, to continue engaging with the international community, reaffirm its commitment to international law, and navigate the complex waters of global diplomacy to secure its interests and promote peace and stability in the region.