Untenable position
The Philippines can accede to Beijing’s call for friendly negotiations, but this should be based on equal terms and without impositions and impossible conditions.
Text size
Share
Daily TribuneThe Philippines can accede to Beijing’s call for friendly negotiations, but this should be based on equal terms and without impositions and impossible conditions.
Share
China has recoiled from the outcome of the successful official visit of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to Australia where he spoke of the need for unity before the Australian Parliament amid the increasing signs of aggression in the West Philippine Sea.
In his address, Marcos maintained that the Philippines would remain firm in defending its sovereignty and jurisdiction over the waters.
“I shall never tire of repeating the declaration that I made from the first day that I took office: I will not allow any attempt by any foreign power to take even one square inch of our sovereign territory. The challenges that we face may be formidable, but equally formidable is our resolve. We will not yield,” Marcos said.
In a subsequent response, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese praised the partnership between Australia and the Philippines, saying the countries were united by the vision of a “peaceful, secure, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific.”
Through its usual mouthpiece, Beijing’s reaction was instant and again touched on the worn-out argument that the Philippines was stirring up trouble by bringing international pressure to bear on China.
“Marcos was playing his old trick — attempting to play the victim card,” according to the usual conduit of Chinese state propaganda.
China repeated a proven deception when it said that from 2 to 9 February, Philippine Coast Guard Ship 9701 repeatedly trespassed in the waters adjacent to Scarborough Shoal.
On 15 February, it said Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources vessel 3005 illegally intruded into the same area.
From 22 to 23 February, vessel 3002 of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources “intruded” into the area that China claims despite repeated warning calls from the China Coast Guard.
The commentary underlined the Philippines’ “naive and simplistic attempts to rally external forces such as Australia,” which it indicated will ultimately fail.
Beijing termed Marcos’ efforts as futile. “Australia, as well as some other countries, can only offer limited support to the Philippines, primarily symbolic diplomatic backing rather than substantial support,” it said.
It reprised another claim that the Philippines was merely a proxy for nations with a larger interest in the disputed body of water.
“In this drama, the Philippines, Australia, and the US behind the scenes are all calculating their geopolitical interests, each with their hidden agenda,” according to Beijing.
It accused Australia, like the United States, of seeking to use the maritime issue “as a lever to intervene in regional dynamics.”
“Australia aims to emphasize its crucial strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region and enhance its bargaining power in its relations with China,” it added.
China’s sensitivity to international opprobrium exposes its isolation on the position it has taken based on a historic claim that a United Nations-backed tribunal has declared as being without basis.
The Philippines can accede to Beijing’s call for friendly negotiations but this should be based on equal terms and without impositions and impossible conditions.
The goal of Marcos’s efforts is to guarantee lasting peace in the area of dispute without the country’s sovereignty being compromised.
The 2016 arbitral ruling thus cannot be set aside since the Philippines, like China, is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which is the basis for the historic award.
Unless China shows comity and allows perspectives other than its own, international pressure will be brought to bear on it to balance the conflicting interests.
