PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is correct about being firm and unyielding about our claims in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) clearly delineates maritime zones and, over the exclusive economic zone as well as the continental shelf of any coastal state, it recognizes "sovereign rights" — essentially the exclusive rights to the marine resources in those zones, including mineral, gas and oil reserves.
China's ridiculous nine-dash line or 10-dash line — a claim that keeps expanding — encompasses virtually the entire South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, in effect rendering nugatory the guarantees of international law. This is not correct, and it would not be correct to yield to China. Whatever its ancient maps purport to show — and why they do show is by no means clear — and whatever ports the ships of long-past Chinese dynasties may have called at have been rendered irrelevant by the entry into force of the Convention of the Law of the Sea to which China is a party!
Does this mean war? Not necessarily, because the intransigence of the Philippines is rules-based. It is Chinese conduct that must conform to rules, and so far, it has not. This is the reason that both the Asean region and the international community must bring pressure on China to conform to rules. The erosion of international law is a disadvantage to the entire community of nations — because then, the international legal order becomes the rule of the strong. This is evidenced by China's aggression with respect to borders with India and the long-simmering disputes with India. China has always thrown its weight around, but thanks to countries like India that will not allow themselves to be intimidated by China, it has not always been able to have its way. The Philippines under BBM is taking the same line — and for this, I am grateful. China must also seriously contend with the possibility that should it start firing at the Philippines either from its military vessels, the islands and features in the disputed waters that it has militarized, or from the Chinese mainland, there would be a legal reason to raise the possibility that the present understanding of the Mutual Defense Treaty may allow for US defensive action in favor of the Philippines. China knows that it does not hold all the aces!
The scaremongers among us warn that our hardline position may just push China into taking military action against us. What does this imply? That in the face of Chinese bullying, we buckle down and allow them to take what is ours? Besides the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is a pronouncement by a competent tribunal that rights lie on our side and that China is wrong.
Alliances must be firmed up — that is why joint patrols, joint military exercises, and multilateral pacts are useful to interdict Chinese expansionism. During the time of the campaign for the 2022 presidential elections, the candidates were asked if they favored the Philippines joining the Quad. In the light of recent developments — and developments that commenced when we let our guard down, shooed the Americans away from our bases, and foolishly fell for Chinese enticements — the answer should be a resounding affirmative. Yes, we must join Quad if we can and other alliances that allow us to stand our ground against Chinese aggression.
As for local government units entering into deals, pacts, or covenants with the PROC, it will be well to remember that we are neither a confederation nor a federal republic — which means that local government units are not at liberty to craft foreign policy independently of the national government. By constitutional apportionment, foreign policy is within the province of executive power — and this constitutionally means the power of the President of the Republic. No local government unit has the legal standing to deviate from the policy so formulated.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@outlook.com
Read The Rest at :
