Ad infinitum, ad nauseam

What they said after they spoke over the phone gives one a clear view of where each party stands regarding the conflict over rights in the South China Sea.

"We had a frank and candid exchange and ended our call with a clearer understanding of our respective positions on a number of issues," came the bland statement from Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo of his exchange by telephone with China's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi.

"We both noted the importance of dialogue in addressing these issues," said Manalo, ever the diplomat.

Meanwhile, dispensing with diplomatese, his Chinese counterpart, in a statement issued by the Chinese Embassy in Manila,  pointed to the Philippines — again — charging it with perpetuating the maritime conflict and "undermining  China's legitimate and lawful rights" over practically the entire South China Sea," even as Wang Yi admonished the Philippine government to stop drawing third-party countries into the conflict — "colluding with ill-intentioned external forces to continue to stir up troubles," and "return to the right path as soon as possible, properly handling and managing the current maritime situation as a top priority," otherwise "China will defend its rights in accordance with law and respond resolutely."

What law is the Chinese foreign minister talking about, and what rights to claims in the vastness of the South China Sea are he and his country imagining?

Is he referring to China's conjuring up of some phantom 10-dash line claim over the South China Sea practically in its entirety? A ridiculous claim that was quashed in 2016 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The pulling of the US into this conflict in the SCS is understandable on the part of the Philippines because both countries are allies by virtue of the Mutual Defense Treaty they forged in 1951, and in the face of China's aggressive island building on an industrial scale for military purposes which has created international tension in the region.

As clearly pointed out in a policy primer written by Tufts University's Fletcher School of Global Affairs, China's militarization of the SCS is "of great concern to the US and its regional allies because this destabilizes the region" and weakens significant international agreements such as the Law of the Sea Convention.

The President stood on firm ground in declaring a week ago that "only the Philippines has a legitimate right and a legal basis to operate anywhere in the West Philippine Sea," and the country remains steadfast in defending Philippine sovereignty" vis-à-vis China's persistent "dangerous actions against Filipinos.

His assertion was made in particular reference to the last water cannon attack on 10 December by Chinese maritime vessels against Philippine naval seacraft on a resupply mission to deliver provisions to troops manning the grounded BRP Sierra Madre at Ayungin Shoal.

The President, indicating that such resupply missions will continue, stressed, "Let me reiterate what is settled and widely recognized: Ayungin Shoal is within our exclusive economic zone (and) any foreign claim of sovereignty over it is baseless and absolutely contrary to international law. (Also) Bajo de Masinloc is a sovereign Philippine territory and an integral part of our archipelago."

Stating his piece on the matter, an irate Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro, especially triggered by China's accusation that the Philippines is causing the tension and trouble in the SCS, lashed out, saying, "Only Beijing believes in what it's saying. The truth is, no country in the world — none — supports unequivocally China's claim to the whole of the South China Sea."

Both parties, having spoken their respective minds on the matter, what, pray tell, is there still to talk about?

There is some good, they say, in talking on (no matter the futility?), for as long as both China and the Philippines — even if the superpower continues to bully the smaller country in the latter's sovereign territory — play up the diplomatic act, as this would prevent the situation from further deteriorating and keep all opposing parties at bay.

If that is the case, what shall be done then? Talk and talk, and talk some more, ad nauseam, ad infinitum?