PRESIDENT Benigno S. Aquino III has been excoriated for his handling of the festering conflict with China over the Spratlys. From losing trading revenues to being pulverized in a shooting war, Aquino’s “belligerence” has been severely criticized, but the pundits have not offered any constructive and realistic suggestions on how we should handle the situation, aside from the equivalent of the late Senator and Foreign Secretary Raul Manglapus’ classic advice: “If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it” (or words to effect).
Meanwhile, the United States has begun to turn on the pressure on China over the broader issue of unhampered access to the strategic maritime lanes comprised by the South China Sea. From being simply an amicus curiae, calling for diplomacy and the rule of international law in resolving the conflict, the US has begun to assert its position as a concerned party with economic, military and political interests at stake.
In his speech at the recently concluded ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, President Barack Obama was no longer subtle in his drubbing of China, in the presence of high-level Chinese delegates: “I commend ASEAN for working to ensure that all nations uphold international law and norms, including the peaceful resolution of disputes, freedom of navigation, and freedom of overflight. And I applaud ASEAN for working to create a code of conduct for the South China Sea. For the sake of regional stability, claimants should halt reclamation, new construction, and militarization of disputed areas.”
The response of China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin was like that of a dirty old man who had been told to keep his hands off a young girl: “One should never link the military facilities with efforts to militarize the South China Sea,” Liu said. “This is a false argument. It is a consistent Chinese position to firmly oppose the militarization of the South China Sea.”
To soft-pedal the loss of face that China had to bear at the summit, a mere deputy foreign minister was designated to express the protest, instead of the head of the Chinese delegation, Premier Li Keqiang.
President Aquino, obviously emboldened by the increasingly vocal US position on the issue, had his own blunt words to say: “It is regrettable that China continues to massively reclaim and build structures in the sea known by many names, in total disregard of international law as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.”
For sure, the alarmists cannot be blamed for pointing out that, what started as an irritant between the Philippines and China – as well as between China and several other countries ringing the South China Sea – is fast becoming a dangerous game of chicken between two economic and military super powers. Even international geopolitical analysts are saying as much.
Unfortunately, in an election season, the possibility of armed conflict that could involve the Philippines appears to have a low priority in the minds of the Filipino people. We appear to be more interested in the virtual teleseries involving Sen. Grace Poe, Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Vice-President Jejomar Binay and Liberal Party presidential standard bearer Mar Roxas, with Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago being mentioned as an afterthought.
However, the average Pinoy who has some familiarity with the Spratlys controversy has some down-to-earth views on it, as I found out on my last trip to Manila. I broached the subject to the tricycle drivers plying our neighborhood in Parañaque. Here are their views:
1. How should the Philippines handle the Spratlys conflict? Napasubo na tayo, kaya panindigan na natin. Pero kahit hindi tayo pumalag, talagang balak ng Tsina na kunin ang South China Sea dahil sa angking yaman nito. Kung baga, matagal nang balak gahasain ang anak mong dalaga. Gagawin at gagwin iyon. (The die is cast, so we have to hold our ground. But even if we did not protest, China really intended to control the South China Sea due to its natural resources. It’s like, there has always been the intention to rape your daughter. It would have happened, anyway.)
2. Couldn’t the Philippines have arranged to share the resources of the Spratlys with China? Kung puede sana, nuon pa, sinabi sana natin na pagsaluhan na lang ang yaman ng dagat, pero siyempre, lamang din ang Tsina dahil higante. (If it were possible, back then, we could have offered to share the wealth of the sea, but of course China would have had an advantage, being a giant).
Walang iniwan iyan sa hatian ng mga magsasaka at ng mga may-ari ng isang hacienda. Siyempre, lamang ang haciendero. (It’s no different from the sharing arrangement between the farmers and the owners of a hacienda. Naturally, the hacienderos get the bigger share).
3. What will happen next? Will a favorable decision of the world court help the Philippines? Iyang nakuha na ng Tsina, hindi na natin mababawi, pero dapat wala nang mabawas sa teritoryo natin. Kaya tama lang na manindigan tayo. Sa bagay na iyan, malaking tulong ang suporta ng America at makakatulong ang pabor na desisyon ng world court. (What China has taken, we cannot get back, but we should not lose any more territory, which is why we should stand our ground. In that regard, the support of America is a big help and so will a favorable decision of the world court.).
4. Will our trade with China suffer because of the conflict? Ang mga intsik ay negosyante. Sa ngayon, mas malaki ang binibili natin sa Tsina kaysa binebenta natin sa kanila. Siyempre tuloy pa rin ang pagbebenta sa atin, kahit may alitan. Negosyo lang iyan. (The Chinese are businessmen. As of now, we are buying more from them than what we are selling to them, that’s why they will continue to sell to us in spite of the conflict. It’s just business)
Pero dapat siguro gumawa tayo ng sariling pagkakakitaan, para hindi tayo masyadong nakasandal sa ibang bayan – tulad ng pagpapalago ng agriulutura, turismo at teknolohiya.. (But we should do something about generating earnings from other sources so that we don’t depend too much on other countries – such as agriculture, tourism and technology)
5. Do we really need the support of the US in dealing with China? Bakit, kaya ba nating suwagin nang mag-isa ang Tsina? Kung hindi ba nakikialam ang America, hindi ba lalo tayong inaapi? (Why, can we take on China by ourselves? If America were not involved, wouldn’t we be bullied even more?)
6. Do you think the US and China will go to war over the South China Sea? Girian lang iyan, at maaaring magkabarilan ng kaunti, pero hindi nila palalakihin iyan. Talo silang pareho at ayaw nilang mangyari iyan. Parang Russia at America nuong Cold War. (It’s just posturing and maybe some shooting, but they will not let it become a big conflict. They will both lose and they don’t want that that happen. Just like Russia and America during the Cold War).
7. Do you think the US will defend the Philippines in an armed conflict with China? Sea? Huwag nating kakalimutan na ang pakikialam ng America ay laging para sa sariling kapakanan. Kung ang kapakanan ng America ay apektado sa labanan ng Pilipinas at Tsina, makikialam ang America. (Remember that American involvement will always be in its own interests. If its interests will be affected by a conflict between the Philippines and China, America will get involved.)
8. Do you think the Philippines should remain neutral? Tayo na nga ang inaapi, papaano tayo hindi mapapadawit sa alitan? (We are the ones being bullied, how can we avoid being involved in the conflict?)
9. Is it too late to repair relations between the Philippines and China? Kahit ba ginahasa ang anak mong dalaga, kung pakakasalan, puedeng mag-areglo. (Even if your daughter is raped, if there is an offer of marriage, an amicable settlement is always possible.)
Sometimes, it helps to listen to the neighborhood tricycle driver and the average Pinoys. They may be wiser than we give them credit for. ([email protected])
