The path to peace in Spratlys

In this photo released by China’s Xinhua news agency, the 3,000-ton, helicopter-equipped Haixun-31 sets off from the Gaolan port in Zhuhai, south China’s Guangdong Province. XINHUA
The dispute over the Spratlys islands in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea/East Sea reached fever pitch last week with four of the six claimants engaging in a show of force in the contested territories.
After China sent its biggest maritime ship, Haixun 31, steaming through the disputed waters, Taiwan geared up for naval missions in the area, Vietnam held live fire naval exercises in what it claims to be the East Sea, and the Philippines removed Chinese markers in what it now calls the West Philippine Sea and, surprise, deployed its flagship, the World War 2 derelict RPS Humabon.
While we may view these actions as mere show of force, or “duruan” in Pilipino parlance, one pull of the trigger by a jittery sailor can, heaven forbid, start a full-blown shooting war. China, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines should stop their military posturing in the disputed territories before the situation takes a turn for the worse.
I agree with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile that the spokesmen of President Benigno S. Aquino III should stop making incendiary statements and allow the foreign policy experts at the Department of Foreign Affairs to handle the situation. While the Philippines must, indeed, aggressively defend its rightful claim to the Kalayaan islands and Mischief Reef in the disputed area, it must accept the reality that it cannot afford to engage the mighty Chinese in a shooting war.
Until the country has attained the capability to fight the Chinese or it has the assurance of the United States that it will come to its aid in case war breaks out with China or any other country, the Philippines must turn to legal and diplomatic means to assert its claim.
Obviously, no amount of posturing or fighting words can change China’s claim to the Spratlys. The Chinese have based their claim on their own version of history, saying that Nansha, as it calls the South China Sea, belonged entirely to China long before the Philippines even became known as Filipinas.
Of course, Taiwan’s claim is based on the bigger premise that China rightfully belongs to Taiwan. And Vietnam also bases its claim to history.
The Philippines also says the Kalayaan Group and the Mischief Reef, the part of the disputed island group that it claims, belong to the country, having annexed the islands in 1971 through a presidential decree issued by President Marcos, at the same time putting up a military outpost in the area.
All six claimants, including Malaysia and Brunei, are basing their claims on history, but unless any of them can produce an acceptable legal document to prove their ownership of the islands, such claims would fall flat before any court of law.
The Philippines has the strongest legal basis for claiming ownership of the Kalayaan Group and the Mischief Reef, the two areas being situated well within the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the United Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China signed in 1992. The UNCLOS was the basis for the removal by the Philippine Navy last week of Chinese markers at the unoccupied the Amy Douglas Bank and Boxhall Reef, which fell well within the 200-mile zone.
I agree with Manila Standard Today columnist Andy del Rosario, my former colleague in that newspaper and a former ambassador to Hungary, that the best option for the Philippines is to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice or before international forums, such as the United Nations or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Since the Philippines has the best legal basis for claiming ownership of the disputed territories, it must capitalize on this and bring the matter before the appropriate international bodies. In this age many years removed from the eras of Napoleon or the Roman Empire, or the modern-day imperialist aggressors Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito, territorial disputes can and must be resolved peacefully and diplomatically.
It may, however, be naïve to believe that the Philippines will win ownership of the disputed territories by simply invoking the Law of the Sea, knowing fully well that the national interests of the military and economic powers of the world are at play in this dispute. The disputed area will play a vital role in maintaining the balance of power in the near future because it is right smack in the middle of Southeast Asia’s sea lanes and is known to contain an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil.
Realistically, it may be to the benefit of the Philippines to push for joint venture and cooperation among the claimants for the exploration and development of the disputed areas, which will assure the country of access to oil and gas exploration in the region, and also allow Filipino fishermen access to its rich fishing grounds.
I’m sure China is aware that the United States will not stand by idly if it attempts to use military power to occupy the disputed islands and would not risk a major war at a time when it is still building both its economy and its military might. China has repeatedly made known its desire to resolve the issue peacefully and diplomatically.
The Philippines must not play with fire in this matter, and should pursue the path to peace in resolving the issue. It can lead the move in the Asean to push for a zone of peace in the disputed islands. Most of the Asean member-countries are enjoying prosperity and would not want to disrupt the peace nor allow one country to control the important sea lanes. They will be more than willing to support such a plan. And so would the United States, which is trying to maintain mutually beneficial relations with China.
War or any form of hostility should not be an option for the resolution of the decades-long conflict. The Philippines, being the country to be most affected by any kind of action among the claimants, should vigorously lead the path to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. No more posturing, just a sincere desire to resolve the conflict.