What is is; what is not is not. This may seem philosophical, but the 17 June incident at sea involving a collision between the Philippine Navy and the China Coast Guard at Ayungin Shoal, a hotly disputed territory in the West Philippine Sea, sounds like it. It has sparked serious debate on whose truth is true.

The incident, which took place in the area also known as Second Thomas Shoal, has become another point of contention between the Philippines and China. It has raised serious questions about whether what happened was a deliberate act of aggression or an accident arising from a misunderstanding over a Philippine resupply mission.

The area is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Philippines and China, with both countries claiming sovereignty.

The incident has brought divergent viewpoints from each side to the fore, adding to the complexity of interpreting the event.

I am unsure whether it was sheer luck that the sheared finger of a Filipino sailor was the lone casualty resulting from a Chinese vessel colliding with a Philippine boat during the resupply mission.

China has accused the Philippines of bullying over a territory that it claims rightfully belongs to the Chinese people. It questioned why the Philippines did not inform China of the resupply mission.

It’s a paradox that the Philippines is accused of being a bully when, on a global scale, we lack a powerful navy and air force, have limited access to advanced technology, and do not have an extensive reach in the waters of Southeast Asia.

Philippine defense and security officials insisted that it was an act of aggression by China on a shoal that rightfully belongs to the Filipinos. Thus, there was no need to inform Beijing ahead of the mission.

Compounding the Philippine misery was Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin’s statement, aided by the National Maritime Council spokesman, that it was an accident arising from a misunderstanding because the Philippines did not inform Beijing beforehand about the mission. Bersamin said the Philippines would consider publishing future RORE missions’ schedules next time.

We are being treated to a verbal brawl over a disputed shoal between top Philippine and Chinese officials, on one hand, and the Philippine defense secretary and the Executive Secretary, on the other.

With Philippine officials seemingly divided, the current situation could have severe implications for finding the right solution to the standoff in the West Philippine Sea.

The discrepancy and inconsistency in messaging raise questions about who accurately conveys the President’s position. While it’s essential to consider various perspectives when shaping our foreign policy and upholding diplomatic relationships, emphasizing these discrepancies in the ongoing debate may potentially pose a security question.

The lack of a clear Philippine stance could exacerbate a foreign policy concern and further complicate the situation. Why are foreign affairs officials silent nowadays?

China has the largest navy in Asia, with 730 military vessels, followed by Russia with 598, and North Korea with 519. I doubt the Philippines can withstand even a one-day sea battle with China in a full-blown conflict without the help of the world’s most potent naval power, the United States. However, even the US coming to the rescue is full of technicalities and must fall within the ambit of the Mutual Defense Treaty and international law.

To safeguard our national interest, the Philippines must maintain a solid and formidable military presence in the West Philippine Sea capable of deterring any hostile actions by any potential aggressor.

Implementing the AFP modernization program has been ongoing for several years, but progress has been slow due to the substantial time and resources required for its execution.

The urgency of the situation requires a unified stance on national security rather than a divided one. Dismiss those who are grandstanding and remove the noisy and irrelevant provocateurs.

Multiple spokespersons can spoil the result.

For feedback, text to 09451450681 or email at cynchdb@gmail.com.