Should Phl go tit for tat with China?
“Such tit-for-tat actions could fuel a cycle of escalation, leading to a heightened risk of maritime incidents potentially spiraling into open conflict."
Daily Tribune“Such tit-for-tat actions could fuel a cycle of escalation, leading to a heightened risk of maritime incidents potentially spiraling into open conflict."
Beijing’s repeated use of water cannons in asserting its sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea has drawn condemnation from various quarters, with militant critics clamoring for a quid pro quo in dealing with such aggression.
Certainly, it hurts being bullied this way by a giant of a neighbor, but is responding with our own water cannons against China’s generous use of powerful jet streams the answer to the tension now going on in the disputed waterway?
Before giving in to such calls, it would be worthwhile to look at the strategic value of a water cannon in the context of China’s assertiveness in the West Philippine Sea. The use of the non-lethal device is definitely very effective in depriving the Philippines of access to shoals within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It can exert pressure and influence without resorting to lethal force.
Water cannons serve both tactical and symbolic purposes, allowing the aggressor to assert dominance while avoiding the escalation of armed conflict. However, deciding whether the Philippines should respond in return with water cannons amid the ongoing tension requires careful consideration of various factors, including diplomatic implications, potential consequences, and the Philippines’ broader strategic objectives in the region.
No less than a Philippine Coast Guard official has declared that the agency would not be drawn into a water war with their Chinese counterpart, saying it would only escalate the tension that may eventually lead to open warfare that we all don’t want to happen.
China’s use of water cannons in the West Philippine Sea underscores its strategy of employing non-lethal means to assert its territorial claims and control over disputed areas. By deploying water cannons against Philippine vessels, China aims to intimidate and deter the Philippines from accessing resources within its EEZ, thereby bolstering its own maritime claims.
The use of water cannons, for all intents and purposes, allows China to project power while minimizing the risk of military escalation, as it falls short of employing lethal force.
From a tactical standpoint, water cannons can disrupt the operations of opposing vessels, hinder navigation, and create hazardous conditions for the personnel on board. Additionally, the high-pressure water jets can damage equipment and compromise the safety of maritime assets, further impeding the ability of the targeted party to assert its rights in contested waters. Moreover, the visual spectacle of water cannons in action is a potent symbol of China’s assertiveness and resolve in defending its maritime interests.
The decision for the Philippines to respond in kind with water cannons warrants careful consideration due to its potential implications. While retaliating with water cannons may offer a means of signaling resolve and defending Philippine interests, it also carries the risk of further escalating tensions and exacerbating the situation. Such tit-for-tat actions could fuel a cycle of escalation, leading to a heightened risk of maritime incidents potentially spiraling into open conflict.
The Philippines must weigh the diplomatic consequences of resorting to tactics similar to China’s.
Responding with water cannons could undermine diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes peacefully and may elicit condemnation from the international community. It is crucial for the Philippines to maintain its credibility as a responsible stakeholder in the region and to adhere to international norms and principles, including the peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for maritime law.
Instead of engaging in a direct confrontation with China using water cannons, the Philippines may opt to pursue alternative avenues to uphold its rights and interests in the West Philippine Sea. This could involve leveraging diplomatic channels, engaging with regional partners and international organizations, and utilizing legal mechanisms such as arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
By adopting a multilateral approach and rallying the international community’s support, the Philippines can amplify its voice and pressure China to abide by established rules and norms governing maritime affairs.
