PCFR CONDEMNS FOREIGN MEDDLING IN MINDANAO
By: Ambassador Jose V. Romero, Jr. Ph.D.
The Philippine Council for Foreign Relations (PCFR) is a multi-sectoral grouping composed of retired Filipino diplomats and armed forces flag-officers, business executives, academic and civil society representatives. The PCFR is dedicated to upholding a constitutional mandate for this country to pursue an independent foreign policy. It is against this background that the membership of the council is dismayed by the seemingly inordinate attention that foreign governments have given to what can be considered as a strictly local affair.
It is unfortunate that what should have been treated as a purely domestic issue relating to a constitutionally erected autonomous region has assumed international dimensions with a comprehensive agreement between this nation and its autonomous region in the south – signed, sealed and delivered under the patronizing gaze of so-called foreign sponsors to a Mindanao peace process.
Instead of the whole matter placed in the hands of the Department of the Interior and Local Governments the issue now internationalized has fallen into the lap of the Department of Foreign Affairs giving the MILF the status of a belligerent state which under international law has given it an importance far above that of its status of autonomous region of this Republic.
Recently the Council took notice of a manifesto recently released to media by some foreign chiefs-of-mission urging this government to pass the highly unconstitutional original mission of the CAB and the BBL as the solution to the Mindanao peace and order situation, this it deemed as undue interference and a violation of the hallowed principle of non-interference in purely domestic affairs, especially since this matter is still being deliberated in Congress and has been elevated to the Supreme Court making it sub-judicial. The fact that the spokesman of the group – the British Ambassador whose country questionably annexed Sabah to the Federation of Malaysia in the early sixties which has spawned a lot of hostilities in Mindanao, is perhaps the last person to be the spokesperson of the group in this controversial issue. His public criticism of legislators who stayed away from Congress during the BBL discussions can only be deemed as highly inappropriate. Perhaps it is good to remind the British Ambassador that this nation is not a part of the British Commonwealth.
Parenthetically, as Ambassador to the Court of St. James in the U.K. as well as envoy to the Scandinavian countries, my father in all the years that he served as Chief of Mission in his postings never dared to comment on purely domestic matters nor did he dare to criticize or advise members of parliament. For our part as Ambassador to Italy, we refrained from commenting publicly on issues discussed by political parties. This simply was not protocol.
In the case of the United States, its stepping up activities in the southern Philippines which includes bringing former combatants from Cotabato and Sulu to Manila to attend sessions designed “to help them sort out self-identity” seem to be at odds with the desire of this nation to develop a multi-cultural society as a road towards peace in an island occupied by Muslims, Indigenous People and Christians.
In the same vein, efforts by the U.S. Embassy, however commendable, to establish legal aid clinics at law schools in Mindanao and Palawan through a legal assistance program in Mindanao, allegedly aimed at “instilling” awareness among youth in Mindanao about legal rights and helping improve access to justice for marginalized Muslim communities in Mindanao fosters exclusiveness which goes against the goal of this country to integrate the Muslim community into the mainstream of a nation composed of different socio-cultural groupings. A U.S. AID internship program that allows university students and recent graduates who live primarily within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to intern in the offices of Philippine lawmakers in Manila allegedly designed to help Muslim youth in conflict-affected areas gain an understanding of democratic values and institutions, governance issues and the process of legislating seem unusual given that Muslim legislators in Congress already pack their offices with Muslim youths who have been inculcated in schools with the virtues of democracy – a task that has been promoted assiduously by our Department of Education in all parts of the country regardless of religious denomination.
Finally, the U.S. grant to students from the University of Mindanao in a month-long internship with grassroots organizations that champion human rights, gender equality, and community empowerment and the bringing of legal professionals and law students from institutions based in Mindanao to the United States where they met U.S. government officials and non government sectors involved in civic legal aid and conflict resolution as part of the annual international visitor leadership program is an affront to University of Mindanao officials who have to export their graduates to the U.S. to learn about human rights and community empowerment. We had thought all this time that the school of higher learning had already these basic courses as part of their curriculum.
In this connection, we have to remind the U.S. that it’s “manifest destiny” of President McKinley to “civilize” this nation ended with the grant of Philippine Independence in 1946.
The actuations of our foreign allies in the so-called peace process which as we said earlier is a purely domestic issue to be best solved among Filipinos regardless of religious affiliation has raised a lot of speculations regarding the rectitude of their intentions of and raised suspicions that alien interests have hidden agendas and are merely using the MILF as proxies.
In the interest of transparency, therefore, we call upon foreign elements involved or interested in the peace process to place their cards on the table, so to speak. What are these possible interests?
Is the U.S. hoping for basing rights under a Bangsamoro sub-state with its parliamentary system under an MILF Chief Minister beholden to Malaysia? Is this the reason for the inordinate attention that the US has in Mindanao which has seen the frequent visit of her Ambassadors to this part of the country, one of whom even witnessed the drafting of the Comprehensive Agreement in Bangsamoro in Kuala Lumpur?
In the case of Her Majesty’s government, which created the Malaysian Federation after illegally annexing to it a big chunk of the real estate of the Sultanate of Sulu in Borneo, is her interest an attempt to protect her vast economic interests in Sabah by aligning with her former colony to marginalize the Sultanate and its faithful Tausug supporters in the Sulu peninsula by giving physical and political control of the area to Malaysia’s mercenary army led by the MILF?
These are the questions that need to be answered if a settlement to the peace process in Mindanao can move forward in the next administration because today the Filipino people cannot swallow a comprehensive agreement for peace in Mindanao which can only be described as having been drafted in Malaysia, by Malaysians and for the benefit of Malaysians and their foreign partners and mercenaries.
For all and sundry, and we address this particularly to the so-called foreign peaceniks who are allegedly brokering the peace process in the land of promise, the government of the Philippines represented by the next administration (because this one is stopped from proceeding with its dangerous political experimentation in Mindanao having claimed the ARMM to have been a failed experiment) will surely be able to convert the land of promise from a war-torn danger zone to a zone of peace and prosperity by simply enhancing the constitutionally erected autonomous region in Mindanao through the grant of full fiscal autonomy, allowing it to accelerate its infrastructure and social overhead projects. This is of course premised on one important conditionality: the political will, which this administration never had, to disarm and integrate when possible all the wayward elements in the island starting with the MILF, MNLF, BIFF, Abu Sayyaf, the private armies, the NPA and others.
Presidents Cory and Ramos were able to promote a semblance of peace and development in the area through a policy of attraction and diplomacy while President Estrada degraded if not decimated the MILF. All three administrations contributed to the establishment of ARMM which is now run by 10,000 bureaucrats sans the support of foreign interlopers. Today it is a work in progress and in certainly not a failed experiment.
The hope is that the region becomes a land of peace for all its stakeholders – Muslims, Lumads, Christians etc. All working together harmoniously as they do in other parts of Asia.
Yes indeed we do not need visitors in this country to tell us what to do. We are no longer a colony!
The Philippine Council for Foreign Relations (PCFR) is a multi-sectoral grouping composed of retired Filipino diplomats and armed forces flag-officers, business executives, academic and civil society representatives. The PCFR is dedicated to upholding a constitutional mandate for this country to pursue an independent foreign policy. It is against this background that the membership of the council is dismayed by the seemingly inordinate attention that foreign governments have given to what can be considered as a strictly local affair.
It is unfortunate that what should have been treated as a purely domestic issue relating to a constitutionally erected autonomous region has assumed international dimensions with a comprehensive agreement between this nation and its autonomous region in the south – signed, sealed and delivered under the patronizing gaze of so-called foreign sponsors to a Mindanao peace process.
Instead of the whole matter placed in the hands of the Department of the Interior and Local Governments the issue now internationalized has fallen into the lap of the Department of Foreign Affairs giving the MILF the status of a belligerent state which under international law has given it an importance far above that of its status of autonomous region of this Republic.
Recently the Council took notice of a manifesto recently released to media by some foreign chiefs-of-mission urging this government to pass the highly unconstitutional original mission of the CAB and the BBL as the solution to the Mindanao peace and order situation, this it deemed as undue interference and a violation of the hallowed principle of non-interference in purely domestic affairs, especially since this matter is still being deliberated in Congress and has been elevated to the Supreme Court making it sub-judicial. The fact that the spokesman of the group – the British Ambassador whose country questionably annexed Sabah to the Federation of Malaysia in the early sixties which has spawned a lot of hostilities in Mindanao, is perhaps the last person to be the spokesperson of the group in this controversial issue. His public criticism of legislators who stayed away from Congress during the BBL discussions can only be deemed as highly inappropriate. Perhaps it is good to remind the British Ambassador that this nation is not a part of the British Commonwealth.
Parenthetically, as Ambassador to the Court of St. James in the U.K. as well as envoy to the Scandinavian countries, my father in all the years that he served as Chief of Mission in his postings never dared to comment on purely domestic matters nor did he dare to criticize or advise members of parliament. For our part as Ambassador to Italy, we refrained from commenting publicly on issues discussed by political parties. This simply was not protocol.
In the case of the United States, its stepping up activities in the southern Philippines which includes bringing former combatants from Cotabato and Sulu to Manila to attend sessions designed “to help them sort out self-identity” seem to be at odds with the desire of this nation to develop a multi-cultural society as a road towards peace in an island occupied by Muslims, Indigenous People and Christians.
In the same vein, efforts by the U.S. Embassy, however commendable, to establish legal aid clinics at law schools in Mindanao and Palawan through a legal assistance program in Mindanao, allegedly aimed at “instilling” awareness among youth in Mindanao about legal rights and helping improve access to justice for marginalized Muslim communities in Mindanao fosters exclusiveness which goes against the goal of this country to integrate the Muslim community into the mainstream of a nation composed of different socio-cultural groupings. A U.S. AID internship program that allows university students and recent graduates who live primarily within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to intern in the offices of Philippine lawmakers in Manila allegedly designed to help Muslim youth in conflict-affected areas gain an understanding of democratic values and institutions, governance issues and the process of legislating seem unusual given that Muslim legislators in Congress already pack their offices with Muslim youths who have been inculcated in schools with the virtues of democracy – a task that has been promoted assiduously by our Department of Education in all parts of the country regardless of religious denomination.
Finally, the U.S. grant to students from the University of Mindanao in a month-long internship with grassroots organizations that champion human rights, gender equality, and community empowerment and the bringing of legal professionals and law students from institutions based in Mindanao to the United States where they met U.S. government officials and non government sectors involved in civic legal aid and conflict resolution as part of the annual international visitor leadership program is an affront to University of Mindanao officials who have to export their graduates to the U.S. to learn about human rights and community empowerment. We had thought all this time that the school of higher learning had already these basic courses as part of their curriculum.
In this connection, we have to remind the U.S. that it’s “manifest destiny” of President McKinley to “civilize” this nation ended with the grant of Philippine Independence in 1946.
The actuations of our foreign allies in the so-called peace process which as we said earlier is a purely domestic issue to be best solved among Filipinos regardless of religious affiliation has raised a lot of speculations regarding the rectitude of their intentions of and raised suspicions that alien interests have hidden agendas and are merely using the MILF as proxies.
In the interest of transparency, therefore, we call upon foreign elements involved or interested in the peace process to place their cards on the table, so to speak. What are these possible interests?
Is the U.S. hoping for basing rights under a Bangsamoro sub-state with its parliamentary system under an MILF Chief Minister beholden to Malaysia? Is this the reason for the inordinate attention that the US has in Mindanao which has seen the frequent visit of her Ambassadors to this part of the country, one of whom even witnessed the drafting of the Comprehensive Agreement in Bangsamoro in Kuala Lumpur?
In the case of Her Majesty’s government, which created the Malaysian Federation after illegally annexing to it a big chunk of the real estate of the Sultanate of Sulu in Borneo, is her interest an attempt to protect her vast economic interests in Sabah by aligning with her former colony to marginalize the Sultanate and its faithful Tausug supporters in the Sulu peninsula by giving physical and political control of the area to Malaysia’s mercenary army led by the MILF?
These are the questions that need to be answered if a settlement to the peace process in Mindanao can move forward in the next administration because today the Filipino people cannot swallow a comprehensive agreement for peace in Mindanao which can only be described as having been drafted in Malaysia, by Malaysians and for the benefit of Malaysians and their foreign partners and mercenaries.
For all and sundry, and we address this particularly to the so-called foreign peaceniks who are allegedly brokering the peace process in the land of promise, the government of the Philippines represented by the next administration (because this one is stopped from proceeding with its dangerous political experimentation in Mindanao having claimed the ARMM to have been a failed experiment) will surely be able to convert the land of promise from a war-torn danger zone to a zone of peace and prosperity by simply enhancing the constitutionally erected autonomous region in Mindanao through the grant of full fiscal autonomy, allowing it to accelerate its infrastructure and social overhead projects. This is of course premised on one important conditionality: the political will, which this administration never had, to disarm and integrate when possible all the wayward elements in the island starting with the MILF, MNLF, BIFF, Abu Sayyaf, the private armies, the NPA and others.
Presidents Cory and Ramos were able to promote a semblance of peace and development in the area through a policy of attraction and diplomacy while President Estrada degraded if not decimated the MILF. All three administrations contributed to the establishment of ARMM which is now run by 10,000 bureaucrats sans the support of foreign interlopers. Today it is a work in progress and in certainly not a failed experiment.
The hope is that the region becomes a land of peace for all its stakeholders – Muslims, Lumads, Christians etc. All working together harmoniously as they do in other parts of Asia.
Yes indeed we do not need visitors in this country to tell us what to do. We are no longer a colony!
NATIONAL IDENTITY vs. NATIONAL INTEREST
By Ambassador Jose V. Romero, Jr. Ph.D.
Dr. Clarita Carlos of UP and a member of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations expressed her disdain for nation states, the creation of which started with the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century. These states have become perennial pests with their periodic quarreling over turf, religion, trade, etc. Worse still nations are multiplying like amoeba, which may be increasingly more difficult to house them in that NY headquarters over time. Indeed at the latest count, some 145 nation-states have been created since 1816 driven by nationalist elements and encouraged by the French and American revolutions.
Her proposition supports the opposition voiced by many sectors against the attempt of our Muslim brothers in Mindanao to erect yet another “bangsa” or nation in an island first occupied by our indigenous brothers. The IPs rather than the Muslim can truly claim the first nation status.
For my part, I rejoiced that the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire lorded over by autocratic European monarchs was degraded by the treaty. I also welcomed the arrival on the scene of Jean Baptiste Colbert French Minister of Finance of King Louis XIV of France, the granddad of political economy which reshaped the architecture of European politics and created a template which gave birth to North and South American democracies and indeed of the New World.
I rejoiced at the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire “where the sun never sets” the defeat of the conquistadores that gave rise to the nation states of Latin America, the Balkanization of Eastern Europe, post-World War decolonization which spawned many nations now delinked from the commercial exploitation by the First World and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At home, I welcomed the statement of President Manuel Quezon that he would rather see this country “run like hell by Filipinos than heaven by Americans,” (he surely got his wish). Actually, the Americans did not run this country like heaven if you consider, how they tricked Aguinaldo, perpetrated the Balangiga Massacre, used water treatment as an instrument of torture, “civilized” us with the Krag – all these to accomplish the “manifest destiny” of President McKinley. But that was water under the bridge.
Since then this country has eschewed the so-called “special relations” with the US, thrown out her military bases, even as we concluded a more respectable Mutual Defense and Visiting Forces Agreements with a country that we share important values. Today a few million Filipinos, which include members of my family have pledge allegiance to the U.S. “in pursuet of the American dream,” even as hundreds of our countrymen line up daily in front of the U.S. Embassy hoping for a U.S. visa.
Today the world has embraced regionalism, multilateralism and other forms of solidarity. The vertical economic and political integration of colonial days is now replaced by horizontal integration. The European model, the template for economic and political integration has not however killed protectionism and political systems that range from left to right of its member countries. British economic liberalism has not rescued the citizens of socialist member countries from the demands of the social market economics of their populist governments. Nations continue to be divided along ideological lines and competing development paradigms.
In the ASEAN alone, it is doubtful whether Vietnam will give up its socialism or Myanmar the dictatorship of the military junta. The great divide in our part of the world is also ethnic, cultural and religious. Kashmir will never join India and a lot of blood was spilled in the effort to integrate the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Christian Aceh fought the Muslim Indonesians and Tibet will never bow to China, etc. This will be a stumbling block to integration. Nation states have therefore been set up to provide the necessary firewall to separate the clash of civilizations.
Today political scientists are split between “constructivists” and “realists”. The former give much importance to national pride, identity or consciousness while the realist gives a premium on interest. At home, the division is between the economic nationalist or protectionists and free-traders who favor an open economy. The former while not exactly favoring state-owned enterprises of the Chinese model favor infant industries surrounded by tariff walls and generous fiscal incentives while the latter favor global trade linkages and trans-nationalism.
State-centric adherents of International Political Economy (IPE) reject a belief popular among many scholars, public officials, and commentators that economic and technological forces have eclipsed the nation-state and are creating a global world economy in which political boundaries and national governments are no longer important. While it may be true that economic and technological forces are continuously reshaping international affairs and influencing the behavior of states in our shrinking world with its highly integrated global economy, countries continue to use their power and to implement policies to channel economic forces in ways that favor their own national economic interests These national economic interests include the quest for a favorable balance of trade and payments and control over monetary and fiscal affairs that are in consonance with the rising expectations of its citizenry and its quest for higher productivity incomes and employment – in short, for a better life.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, nation states have come under attack from within and from without; both transnational economic forces and ethnic nationalism were tearing at its economic and political foundation but these trends only work at creating more countries rather than less.
In sum, nation-states were created to meet specific needs - to provide economic and political security and to achieve other desired goals; in return, citizens preserve the territorial integrity of the nation state, obey its laws and support it through taxes.
The big question is should identity be a more important consideration than interest in the life of a nation? As a political-economist my problem is an accurate definition of “identity” and the qualitative and quantitative measurement of “interest”.
This is an important consideration if this country is to pursue an independent foreign policy as mandated by the constitution!
Dr. Clarita Carlos of UP and a member of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations expressed her disdain for nation states, the creation of which started with the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century. These states have become perennial pests with their periodic quarreling over turf, religion, trade, etc. Worse still nations are multiplying like amoeba, which may be increasingly more difficult to house them in that NY headquarters over time. Indeed at the latest count, some 145 nation-states have been created since 1816 driven by nationalist elements and encouraged by the French and American revolutions.
Her proposition supports the opposition voiced by many sectors against the attempt of our Muslim brothers in Mindanao to erect yet another “bangsa” or nation in an island first occupied by our indigenous brothers. The IPs rather than the Muslim can truly claim the first nation status.
For my part, I rejoiced that the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire lorded over by autocratic European monarchs was degraded by the treaty. I also welcomed the arrival on the scene of Jean Baptiste Colbert French Minister of Finance of King Louis XIV of France, the granddad of political economy which reshaped the architecture of European politics and created a template which gave birth to North and South American democracies and indeed of the New World.
I rejoiced at the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire “where the sun never sets” the defeat of the conquistadores that gave rise to the nation states of Latin America, the Balkanization of Eastern Europe, post-World War decolonization which spawned many nations now delinked from the commercial exploitation by the First World and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
At home, I welcomed the statement of President Manuel Quezon that he would rather see this country “run like hell by Filipinos than heaven by Americans,” (he surely got his wish). Actually, the Americans did not run this country like heaven if you consider, how they tricked Aguinaldo, perpetrated the Balangiga Massacre, used water treatment as an instrument of torture, “civilized” us with the Krag – all these to accomplish the “manifest destiny” of President McKinley. But that was water under the bridge.
Since then this country has eschewed the so-called “special relations” with the US, thrown out her military bases, even as we concluded a more respectable Mutual Defense and Visiting Forces Agreements with a country that we share important values. Today a few million Filipinos, which include members of my family have pledge allegiance to the U.S. “in pursuet of the American dream,” even as hundreds of our countrymen line up daily in front of the U.S. Embassy hoping for a U.S. visa.
Today the world has embraced regionalism, multilateralism and other forms of solidarity. The vertical economic and political integration of colonial days is now replaced by horizontal integration. The European model, the template for economic and political integration has not however killed protectionism and political systems that range from left to right of its member countries. British economic liberalism has not rescued the citizens of socialist member countries from the demands of the social market economics of their populist governments. Nations continue to be divided along ideological lines and competing development paradigms.
In the ASEAN alone, it is doubtful whether Vietnam will give up its socialism or Myanmar the dictatorship of the military junta. The great divide in our part of the world is also ethnic, cultural and religious. Kashmir will never join India and a lot of blood was spilled in the effort to integrate the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Christian Aceh fought the Muslim Indonesians and Tibet will never bow to China, etc. This will be a stumbling block to integration. Nation states have therefore been set up to provide the necessary firewall to separate the clash of civilizations.
Today political scientists are split between “constructivists” and “realists”. The former give much importance to national pride, identity or consciousness while the realist gives a premium on interest. At home, the division is between the economic nationalist or protectionists and free-traders who favor an open economy. The former while not exactly favoring state-owned enterprises of the Chinese model favor infant industries surrounded by tariff walls and generous fiscal incentives while the latter favor global trade linkages and trans-nationalism.
State-centric adherents of International Political Economy (IPE) reject a belief popular among many scholars, public officials, and commentators that economic and technological forces have eclipsed the nation-state and are creating a global world economy in which political boundaries and national governments are no longer important. While it may be true that economic and technological forces are continuously reshaping international affairs and influencing the behavior of states in our shrinking world with its highly integrated global economy, countries continue to use their power and to implement policies to channel economic forces in ways that favor their own national economic interests These national economic interests include the quest for a favorable balance of trade and payments and control over monetary and fiscal affairs that are in consonance with the rising expectations of its citizenry and its quest for higher productivity incomes and employment – in short, for a better life.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, nation states have come under attack from within and from without; both transnational economic forces and ethnic nationalism were tearing at its economic and political foundation but these trends only work at creating more countries rather than less.
In sum, nation-states were created to meet specific needs - to provide economic and political security and to achieve other desired goals; in return, citizens preserve the territorial integrity of the nation state, obey its laws and support it through taxes.
The big question is should identity be a more important consideration than interest in the life of a nation? As a political-economist my problem is an accurate definition of “identity” and the qualitative and quantitative measurement of “interest”.
This is an important consideration if this country is to pursue an independent foreign policy as mandated by the constitution!
AMERICAN VS. CHINESE DEFENSE STRATEGY?
By: Jose V. Romero Jr., PhD
As early as August 19, 1945, just as the war was drawing to a close, the US crafted its post-war strategic plan for the control of the China Sea for political and economic motives envisioning the military role of the Philippines, among other sites considered “strategic.”
As defined by the U.S. its strategy in the Pacific would revolve “around a center line running north to the equator, through the Hawaiian Islands, the Marshalls, the Carolines, the Marianas and the Philippines, with the Northern flank protected by the Aleutians and the Kuriles and the southern flank by a mixture of islands. This gave birth to naval and military bases such as Clark and Subic to be maintained by the U.S. is to assume responsibility for “keeping peace” in the Pacific and insure not only the freedom of navigation to protect the unhampered flow of such items as energy from the Middle East which supplied a substantial requirement of that country. It was assumed that this would also guarantee the rapid expansion of American economic interests and political influence in the area. The Seventh Fleet was intended to check any country or power which would challenge American vision.
In sum, U.S. foreign policy in the Pacific was calibrated “to maintain strategic control of the Pacific Ocean areas.” In pursuit of this end the maintenance of a total of 33 naval bases and airfield in 22 separate localities was designed. The US media described these developments as part of a grand design “to make an American lake out of the Pacific Ocean” complementing Washington’s other primary goal – to convert the Asia-Pacific region into as an extension of the American market.
Politically these moves were the part of the Asian version of the Monroe Doctrine which brought Latin American states under the US security umbrella and economic co-prosperity sphere. It was also part of the containment policy to insulate Asia from Sino-Soviet control.
Indeed the thrust of President Truman’s containment doctrine was to assure American dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, including the strategic waterways linking the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. An awareness of the region as a rich reservoir of raw materials, a cheap source of manpower and a vast market for American finished products and an outlet for investing its surplus capital dictated this thrust.
To complement its “containment” policy, the U.S. adopted the military strategy of “forward defense”. This stemmed from geo-political considerations where the oceans are utilized as barriers for the defense of the continental United States. It was also designed “to cover all of America’s essential interests, for the same oceans are avenues for the expansions of its military and political influence abroad and provide for international commerce which is essential to the sustained industrial out of the U.S. and its allies.” The “forward defense” strategy required the inter-positioning of substantial American forces in the western part of the Pacific Ocean, on or adjacent to the coast of mainland Asia, from a sprawling base complex in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.
The 1947 Military Bases Agreement and the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1951 converted the Philippines into a vital link in the containment ring.
The principal architect of the “forward defense” strategy was Gen. Douglas McArthur, who at that time was the chief of the Allied occupation forces in Japan. He stated that to project U.S. military power into mainland East Asia, it was essential to have “air striking power” launched from the offshore island rim, it was essential to have “air Aleutians, Japan, the former Japanese mandated islands, Clark Field in the Philippines, and Okinawa. This strategy was ratified by both governments in the Mutual Defense Treaty between President Elpidio Quirino and Truman on August 30, 1951 formally declared the two parties.
A Station for Nuclear Carriers and Weapons
An indication that nuclear weapons are transported into or across Philippine territory was presented by U.S. Rear Adm. Gene La Rocque (ret.) before a U.S. congressional hearing. La Rocque testified that ships carrying nuclear weapons regularly dock at Subic and it is the practice “that any ship that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons carries nuclear weapons. They do not offload them when they go into foreign ports . . . they normally keep them aboard ship at all times except when the ship is in overhaul or in for major repairs.”
The Washington-based Center for Defense Information (CDI) had likewise categorically declared that the Philippines is one of 12 foreign countries where nuclear carriers and weapons are stationed. The CDI reported an estimated 1, 700 tactical weapons that the U.S. maintains on land in Asia and the presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Korea and the Philippines as well as at U.S. installations on Guam and Midway adding that most of the weapons are for U.S. fighter bombers.
Threats Posed by RP-US Agreements
In 1975 President Marcos declared that it was important to discuss whether the identity of interests which formed the basis of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States still existed insofar as the United States is concerned. ”If the purpose of American military bases is to strengthen American military posture in the Pacific, or in the Indian Ocean and throughout the world, does this not expose the Philippines to the animosities, suspicious and the conflicts arising out of the American military build-up – animosities and conflicts that we have no participation in making and do not these bases endanger the safety of the Filipinos and the Philippines not only from conventional armed attack, but from possible nuclear attack? Marcos queried.
Marcos apprehension was reinforced by the conventional wisdom in the United States that officially considers the Philippines, along with Thailand and South Korea, among its “front-line” states which the U.S. cannot countenance to let go.
China Fills China Sea Vacuum
With the end of the Vietnam war where the US suffered a bloody nose in the hands of the forces of Ho Chi Min ,the US appetite for foreign entanglements waned and allowed itself to be elbowed out of the Philippines with the non-renewal of the bases agreement between the two countries. Thus a power vacuum was created in the China Sea which the Chinese was quick to fill. Indeed the Obama pivot to Asia came a little too late in the face of the grim determination of the Asian behemoth to extend its defense perimeter as far as allied opinion would allow. When the Chinese pushed the envelope farther and farther forward and the RP-US response was weak she found a window of opportunity to challenge US hegemony in Asia and change the power balance.
Against this changing scenario China was quick to jump into the China Sea in order to gain tactical superiority and takeover the first-island chain enclosing the sea. It had hoped to stretch the outward reach of its coastal air force all along its exposed seafront which have been seized by foreign invaders up to the second world war. By building airstrips from reefs and shoals it can now extend decisively the flying time of its interceptor aircraft that now has to refuel while airborne. Moreover by dredging around the islets she could create full-blown harbours large enough for warships.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander China seems to say !
If its archrival in Asia, the mighty US can intimidate her huge continent by establishing forward positions for the US military by annexing territories near her harbours such as the Philippines, Hawaiia, Guam, China feels that she too has the right to counter by extending her defense perimeter at the expense of this country which after all surrendered its territory to the US during the first half of the last century and continues to play host to the mighty Western power
Indeed the Obama pivot to Asia is now being countered by the New Silk Road both of which strategy require dominance if not control of the disputed West and East China Sea!
In the meantime the US Navy Carrier Battle group of its Seventh Fleet looks menacingly at the China military build-up on man-made islands on the Fierry Cross and Subi reefs which would serve as bases that could extend the offensive clout of the Chinese military by rendering logistical support to its warships and multi-role fighters.Worse still these islets could have the capability to launch its deadly DF-21D carrier-killer hypersonic missiles!
As the saying goes ,when elephants fight the grass is trampled .Should we run for cover? Not yet ,because we have not yet until we have exhausted our deadly arsenal in the form of a multi-track approach towards China – diplomatic (arbitral ),political(.Asean)economic,social and most importantly the power of prayer for peace in the region.
As defined by the U.S. its strategy in the Pacific would revolve “around a center line running north to the equator, through the Hawaiian Islands, the Marshalls, the Carolines, the Marianas and the Philippines, with the Northern flank protected by the Aleutians and the Kuriles and the southern flank by a mixture of islands. This gave birth to naval and military bases such as Clark and Subic to be maintained by the U.S. is to assume responsibility for “keeping peace” in the Pacific and insure not only the freedom of navigation to protect the unhampered flow of such items as energy from the Middle East which supplied a substantial requirement of that country. It was assumed that this would also guarantee the rapid expansion of American economic interests and political influence in the area. The Seventh Fleet was intended to check any country or power which would challenge American vision.
In sum, U.S. foreign policy in the Pacific was calibrated “to maintain strategic control of the Pacific Ocean areas.” In pursuit of this end the maintenance of a total of 33 naval bases and airfield in 22 separate localities was designed. The US media described these developments as part of a grand design “to make an American lake out of the Pacific Ocean” complementing Washington’s other primary goal – to convert the Asia-Pacific region into as an extension of the American market.
Politically these moves were the part of the Asian version of the Monroe Doctrine which brought Latin American states under the US security umbrella and economic co-prosperity sphere. It was also part of the containment policy to insulate Asia from Sino-Soviet control.
Indeed the thrust of President Truman’s containment doctrine was to assure American dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, including the strategic waterways linking the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. An awareness of the region as a rich reservoir of raw materials, a cheap source of manpower and a vast market for American finished products and an outlet for investing its surplus capital dictated this thrust.
To complement its “containment” policy, the U.S. adopted the military strategy of “forward defense”. This stemmed from geo-political considerations where the oceans are utilized as barriers for the defense of the continental United States. It was also designed “to cover all of America’s essential interests, for the same oceans are avenues for the expansions of its military and political influence abroad and provide for international commerce which is essential to the sustained industrial out of the U.S. and its allies.” The “forward defense” strategy required the inter-positioning of substantial American forces in the western part of the Pacific Ocean, on or adjacent to the coast of mainland Asia, from a sprawling base complex in Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.
The 1947 Military Bases Agreement and the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1951 converted the Philippines into a vital link in the containment ring.
The principal architect of the “forward defense” strategy was Gen. Douglas McArthur, who at that time was the chief of the Allied occupation forces in Japan. He stated that to project U.S. military power into mainland East Asia, it was essential to have “air striking power” launched from the offshore island rim, it was essential to have “air Aleutians, Japan, the former Japanese mandated islands, Clark Field in the Philippines, and Okinawa. This strategy was ratified by both governments in the Mutual Defense Treaty between President Elpidio Quirino and Truman on August 30, 1951 formally declared the two parties.
A Station for Nuclear Carriers and Weapons
An indication that nuclear weapons are transported into or across Philippine territory was presented by U.S. Rear Adm. Gene La Rocque (ret.) before a U.S. congressional hearing. La Rocque testified that ships carrying nuclear weapons regularly dock at Subic and it is the practice “that any ship that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons carries nuclear weapons. They do not offload them when they go into foreign ports . . . they normally keep them aboard ship at all times except when the ship is in overhaul or in for major repairs.”
The Washington-based Center for Defense Information (CDI) had likewise categorically declared that the Philippines is one of 12 foreign countries where nuclear carriers and weapons are stationed. The CDI reported an estimated 1, 700 tactical weapons that the U.S. maintains on land in Asia and the presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Korea and the Philippines as well as at U.S. installations on Guam and Midway adding that most of the weapons are for U.S. fighter bombers.
Threats Posed by RP-US Agreements
In 1975 President Marcos declared that it was important to discuss whether the identity of interests which formed the basis of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States still existed insofar as the United States is concerned. ”If the purpose of American military bases is to strengthen American military posture in the Pacific, or in the Indian Ocean and throughout the world, does this not expose the Philippines to the animosities, suspicious and the conflicts arising out of the American military build-up – animosities and conflicts that we have no participation in making and do not these bases endanger the safety of the Filipinos and the Philippines not only from conventional armed attack, but from possible nuclear attack? Marcos queried.
Marcos apprehension was reinforced by the conventional wisdom in the United States that officially considers the Philippines, along with Thailand and South Korea, among its “front-line” states which the U.S. cannot countenance to let go.
China Fills China Sea Vacuum
With the end of the Vietnam war where the US suffered a bloody nose in the hands of the forces of Ho Chi Min ,the US appetite for foreign entanglements waned and allowed itself to be elbowed out of the Philippines with the non-renewal of the bases agreement between the two countries. Thus a power vacuum was created in the China Sea which the Chinese was quick to fill. Indeed the Obama pivot to Asia came a little too late in the face of the grim determination of the Asian behemoth to extend its defense perimeter as far as allied opinion would allow. When the Chinese pushed the envelope farther and farther forward and the RP-US response was weak she found a window of opportunity to challenge US hegemony in Asia and change the power balance.
Against this changing scenario China was quick to jump into the China Sea in order to gain tactical superiority and takeover the first-island chain enclosing the sea. It had hoped to stretch the outward reach of its coastal air force all along its exposed seafront which have been seized by foreign invaders up to the second world war. By building airstrips from reefs and shoals it can now extend decisively the flying time of its interceptor aircraft that now has to refuel while airborne. Moreover by dredging around the islets she could create full-blown harbours large enough for warships.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander China seems to say !
If its archrival in Asia, the mighty US can intimidate her huge continent by establishing forward positions for the US military by annexing territories near her harbours such as the Philippines, Hawaiia, Guam, China feels that she too has the right to counter by extending her defense perimeter at the expense of this country which after all surrendered its territory to the US during the first half of the last century and continues to play host to the mighty Western power
Indeed the Obama pivot to Asia is now being countered by the New Silk Road both of which strategy require dominance if not control of the disputed West and East China Sea!
In the meantime the US Navy Carrier Battle group of its Seventh Fleet looks menacingly at the China military build-up on man-made islands on the Fierry Cross and Subi reefs which would serve as bases that could extend the offensive clout of the Chinese military by rendering logistical support to its warships and multi-role fighters.Worse still these islets could have the capability to launch its deadly DF-21D carrier-killer hypersonic missiles!
As the saying goes ,when elephants fight the grass is trampled .Should we run for cover? Not yet ,because we have not yet until we have exhausted our deadly arsenal in the form of a multi-track approach towards China – diplomatic (arbitral ),political(.Asean)economic,social and most importantly the power of prayer for peace in the region.
CREATIVE DIPLOMACY NEEDED IN WEST PHILIPPINE SEA
By: Jose V. Romero Jr., PhD
What is important is to understand the underlying motives behind Chinese actuations in the China Sea. First and foremost, China seeks to change the power balance in the South China (West Philippine Sea) to challenge the Obama pivot to Asia.
Chinese motives are both economic and military. It wants control of the China Sea initially, to protect its 18,000-kilometer coastline from seaborne attack, and, eventually, to project Chinese power beyond even the West Pacific to the world ocean.
Chinese construction activities on the China Sea serve notice to the world to accept China’s emergence as a first-rank power and its ultimate ownership of East Asia’s maritime heartland and to challenge US dominion in the area. This also serves the purpose of her “far sea defense” program to protect China’s coastal cities that are booming thanks to Deng Xiaoping’s successful new economic and political development paradigms.
Gaining Tactical Superiority
China’s first step in this endeavour is to gain tactical superiority on the first island-chain enclosing the China Sea. To operationalize this, it must stretch the outward reach of its coastal air force all along its exposed sea-front – from which (in Xinhua’s reckoning) 470 foreign invasions and intrusions have come since 1840, when the British grabbed Hong Kong.
Airstrips built up from reefs and shoals can extend decisively the flying time of interceptor aircraft that now must refuel while airborne. On the other hand China believes that dredging around the islets could create even full-blown harbors large enough for warships.
It is important to vote that the sleeping giant in the Asian continent is now wide awake and beginning to roar. This does not mean that it is ready to swallow all the claimants to the South China Sea. But it is prepared to go on first, second and third gear – that is more assertive without being belligerent. It will not push the envelope too far as to raise the hackles of the US. Nor will it invade any claimant nation like the Philippines which will immediately type it as a rogue nation and court immediate retaliation from the US which has a mutual defense agreement with this country. It will however continue with its constructive activities in the islands in the South China Sea despite U.S. warnings knowing that the U.S. will not go to war over Chinese claims in the sea.
China has not been much of a colonizer even if he has been colonized by the English, French, and Japanese with the help of the Americans and Soviets in the last century. Having more or less consolidated its position in the mainland after securing its southern borders with the annexation of Hong Kong and Macau and its northern territories by folding in Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet, and survived serious border challenges from India in the West and Russia in the northeast, China is now prepared to extend its power and influence in its second line of defense which are the islands in the South China Sea.
There are two major reasons for this – one political and the other economic. Politically China wants to secure its long coastline from predators by occupying the islands and islets in the South China Sea as its second line of defense. It is also conscious of the fact that in international law possession is 90% in winning its claim. On the economic side the hydrocarbon deposits and the rich marine life in the sea is obviously a prized catch.
Bilateral Rather than Multilateral
China is expected to continue to insist on bilateral negotiations which will allow it to divide and conquer Asean nations while stalling any multilateral negotiations fearing that outside powers principally the U.S., which heretofore dominated the sea through its powerful flotilla, will hijack these talks.
China’s bilateral strategy will continue to be a combination of winning friends and influencing claimants by dangling such carrots as the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the proposed New Silk Route, and assertiveness short of belligerency by exerting its sovereignty in the islands through its “constructive strategy” of demonstrating effective control, occupation and administration of some of the islands in the China Sea.
The Way Forward - Creative Diplomacy
Competing national interests of the claimants of South China Sea prevents a single voice of the Asean against Chinese encroachment. It is imperative therefore that claimant put their act together. This done, the group can then examine the myriad options and solutions being proposed to solve the crisis. This requires above everything creative diplomacy. Creative and preventive diplomacy can look at such proposed solutions such as the appointment of an eminent persons group acceptable by the claimants ,a code of conduct in the disputed sea, the institutionalization of multilateral dialogue, a maritime safety and surveillance, the establishment of a marine preserve etc, These are half-measure designed for confidence building. The political will of the claimants to participate in these are paramount which brings us back to the major problem in the first place. However conciliation, mediation, arbitration through the good offices of neighboring non-claimant nations such as Indonesia and Thailand might break the deadlock.
Unfortunately, given the high stakes the economic and military superiority of China makes it difficult for her to give up her upper hand and submit to a multilateral albeit independent judicial or arbitral body. Indeed China has made it absolutely clear that it will not accept the involvement of outside entities, particularly from the West.
In sum China will not accept negotiations short of direct negotiations whether bilateral or serial bilateral but the Asean could provide a forum and a general framework and specific mechanism for lateral diplomacy. The Asean Treaty of Amity Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) could also act as a unique diplomatic instrument for regional confidence building as well as preventive diplomacy and political and security cooperation. Among the possibilities proposed pursuant to TAC are: negotiation of principles, such as a code of conduct of peaceful dispute settlement; a regional conflict prevention centre; crisis prevention exercises; appointment of a high commissioner for maritime affairs; establishment of permanent and hoc committee or working groups; and more tract-two initiatives.
Bilateral Negotiations
China has consistently insisted that all the issues are the South China should be resolved through bilateral negotiations. They believe it would be easier for two parties to agree to cooperate than for larger groups and that a web of bilateral agreements can form the basis for a multilateral process and solution.
A Multilateral Management Regiment
For a multilateral maritime regime for the South China Sea to succeed it must accept the following principles, objectives and political realities.
· The territory sovereignty and sovereign integrity of every claimant should be equally recognized in the regime.
· Regional disputes should be resolved through peaceful meanwhile. Provocative military activities, such as the establishment of military bases, and fortification should not be allowed even as construction activities and creeping encroachment such as island hopping should be forbidden.
· The principles of equity and fairness toward all countries and all peoples of the region should be adopted in the exploitation of the resources of the sea.
· The principles of cooperative regional exploration, development and management of the living and non-living resources of the South China Sea should be the norm.
Expected Results
· Enhanced peace and security in the South China Sea.
· Creation of a stable, predictable maritime regime for the South China Sea based on mutual restraint, transparency, trust and confidence.
· Demilitarizing the Spratly through an agreed, mutual, step-by-step process.
· Managing the resources in a cooperative, equitable, efficient, rational and sustainable manner.
· Ensuring safe navigation and preventing piracy, drug-smuggling, poaching, purposeful pollution and other illegal activities.
· Providing a mechanism for consultations on maritime matters and for resolving disputes among the South China Sea countries.
Under this cooperative regime, sovereignty claims in the area beyond 200 nautical miles would be frozen, and the coordinating agency would eliminate conflict, facilitate exploration and development of resources, manage fisheries access to the “area” would be equally available to all claimants. The legitimate passage of vessels would be allowed.
In Sum
Creative diplomacy should be maximised towards the solution of the South China dispute. It calls for conflict resolution that prevents existing disputes from escalating into clashes and limiting the spread of conflict when it occurs. This requires persuading the parties to work closely and cooperatively for conflict prevention, management and reduction. It requires efforts to sustain a co-operative spirit.
Creative diplomacy should focus on avoiding or ending violence by revolving the most immediate and overt dimensions of conflict while seeking to remove the resource of conflict altogether. Admittedly the process is a high hanging fruit and long term process which may require fine-tuning from time to time depending on circumstances and even changes in the goals, perceptions and attitudes of the conflicting parties.
An Eminent Persons Group
Creative diplomacy could be more effective, according to some observers, if a small group of carefully selected influential persons might be convened for a series of meeting to discuss and recommend solutions to the disputes.
This “Committee of Eminent Persons” might be led respected leaders from non-claimant regional countries, such as Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Moreover an institutionalized multilateral dialogue could be initiated to supplement the above initiative.
A Code of Conduct
A Code of Conduct for the South China Sea has not been taken up seriously by China from the look of things. This does not mean however that the Asean should give up the idea. The Code should include specific measures for preventing conflict over fishery disputes or accidental military encounters. Such provisions could cover incidents involving warships, military aircraft and naval auxiliaries; identify navigational rights; permit surveillance, but not in such a way as may embarrass or endanger the platform under surveillance.
Once a Code of Conduct is agreed on, the claimants could consider measures to transform the area of dispute into a zone of cooperation, first for fisheries, with gradual demilitarisation and eventual multilateral development of such resources as hydrocarbon and other mineral resources. More importantly it can provide for a South China Sea maritime safety and surveillance regime and coordination among claimant countries.
Philippine Posture
In the meantime this country should not let its guard down it should continue to rely on the mutual defense agreement with its ally the U.S. while cultivating security arrangements with friendly neighbors like Japan, Vietnam and whoever. In the case of the U.S. however it would be enough for the U.S. to give this country a credible defense force without insisting on American boots on Philippine soil which would appear to the Chinese as act more aggressive than defensive. Moreover the stationing of military hardware manned by Americans in our soil would be a magnet for Chinese attack in case the pushing becomes a shoving match between the two superpowers in the area. Last but not the least military preparedness at home is an urgent necessity starting with a revival of a citizens army like the ROTC.
Chinese motives are both economic and military. It wants control of the China Sea initially, to protect its 18,000-kilometer coastline from seaborne attack, and, eventually, to project Chinese power beyond even the West Pacific to the world ocean.
Chinese construction activities on the China Sea serve notice to the world to accept China’s emergence as a first-rank power and its ultimate ownership of East Asia’s maritime heartland and to challenge US dominion in the area. This also serves the purpose of her “far sea defense” program to protect China’s coastal cities that are booming thanks to Deng Xiaoping’s successful new economic and political development paradigms.
Gaining Tactical Superiority
China’s first step in this endeavour is to gain tactical superiority on the first island-chain enclosing the China Sea. To operationalize this, it must stretch the outward reach of its coastal air force all along its exposed sea-front – from which (in Xinhua’s reckoning) 470 foreign invasions and intrusions have come since 1840, when the British grabbed Hong Kong.
Airstrips built up from reefs and shoals can extend decisively the flying time of interceptor aircraft that now must refuel while airborne. On the other hand China believes that dredging around the islets could create even full-blown harbors large enough for warships.
It is important to vote that the sleeping giant in the Asian continent is now wide awake and beginning to roar. This does not mean that it is ready to swallow all the claimants to the South China Sea. But it is prepared to go on first, second and third gear – that is more assertive without being belligerent. It will not push the envelope too far as to raise the hackles of the US. Nor will it invade any claimant nation like the Philippines which will immediately type it as a rogue nation and court immediate retaliation from the US which has a mutual defense agreement with this country. It will however continue with its constructive activities in the islands in the South China Sea despite U.S. warnings knowing that the U.S. will not go to war over Chinese claims in the sea.
China has not been much of a colonizer even if he has been colonized by the English, French, and Japanese with the help of the Americans and Soviets in the last century. Having more or less consolidated its position in the mainland after securing its southern borders with the annexation of Hong Kong and Macau and its northern territories by folding in Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet, and survived serious border challenges from India in the West and Russia in the northeast, China is now prepared to extend its power and influence in its second line of defense which are the islands in the South China Sea.
There are two major reasons for this – one political and the other economic. Politically China wants to secure its long coastline from predators by occupying the islands and islets in the South China Sea as its second line of defense. It is also conscious of the fact that in international law possession is 90% in winning its claim. On the economic side the hydrocarbon deposits and the rich marine life in the sea is obviously a prized catch.
Bilateral Rather than Multilateral
China is expected to continue to insist on bilateral negotiations which will allow it to divide and conquer Asean nations while stalling any multilateral negotiations fearing that outside powers principally the U.S., which heretofore dominated the sea through its powerful flotilla, will hijack these talks.
China’s bilateral strategy will continue to be a combination of winning friends and influencing claimants by dangling such carrots as the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the proposed New Silk Route, and assertiveness short of belligerency by exerting its sovereignty in the islands through its “constructive strategy” of demonstrating effective control, occupation and administration of some of the islands in the China Sea.
The Way Forward - Creative Diplomacy
Competing national interests of the claimants of South China Sea prevents a single voice of the Asean against Chinese encroachment. It is imperative therefore that claimant put their act together. This done, the group can then examine the myriad options and solutions being proposed to solve the crisis. This requires above everything creative diplomacy. Creative and preventive diplomacy can look at such proposed solutions such as the appointment of an eminent persons group acceptable by the claimants ,a code of conduct in the disputed sea, the institutionalization of multilateral dialogue, a maritime safety and surveillance, the establishment of a marine preserve etc, These are half-measure designed for confidence building. The political will of the claimants to participate in these are paramount which brings us back to the major problem in the first place. However conciliation, mediation, arbitration through the good offices of neighboring non-claimant nations such as Indonesia and Thailand might break the deadlock.
Unfortunately, given the high stakes the economic and military superiority of China makes it difficult for her to give up her upper hand and submit to a multilateral albeit independent judicial or arbitral body. Indeed China has made it absolutely clear that it will not accept the involvement of outside entities, particularly from the West.
In sum China will not accept negotiations short of direct negotiations whether bilateral or serial bilateral but the Asean could provide a forum and a general framework and specific mechanism for lateral diplomacy. The Asean Treaty of Amity Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) could also act as a unique diplomatic instrument for regional confidence building as well as preventive diplomacy and political and security cooperation. Among the possibilities proposed pursuant to TAC are: negotiation of principles, such as a code of conduct of peaceful dispute settlement; a regional conflict prevention centre; crisis prevention exercises; appointment of a high commissioner for maritime affairs; establishment of permanent and hoc committee or working groups; and more tract-two initiatives.
Bilateral Negotiations
China has consistently insisted that all the issues are the South China should be resolved through bilateral negotiations. They believe it would be easier for two parties to agree to cooperate than for larger groups and that a web of bilateral agreements can form the basis for a multilateral process and solution.
A Multilateral Management Regiment
For a multilateral maritime regime for the South China Sea to succeed it must accept the following principles, objectives and political realities.
· The territory sovereignty and sovereign integrity of every claimant should be equally recognized in the regime.
· Regional disputes should be resolved through peaceful meanwhile. Provocative military activities, such as the establishment of military bases, and fortification should not be allowed even as construction activities and creeping encroachment such as island hopping should be forbidden.
· The principles of equity and fairness toward all countries and all peoples of the region should be adopted in the exploitation of the resources of the sea.
· The principles of cooperative regional exploration, development and management of the living and non-living resources of the South China Sea should be the norm.
Expected Results
· Enhanced peace and security in the South China Sea.
· Creation of a stable, predictable maritime regime for the South China Sea based on mutual restraint, transparency, trust and confidence.
· Demilitarizing the Spratly through an agreed, mutual, step-by-step process.
· Managing the resources in a cooperative, equitable, efficient, rational and sustainable manner.
· Ensuring safe navigation and preventing piracy, drug-smuggling, poaching, purposeful pollution and other illegal activities.
· Providing a mechanism for consultations on maritime matters and for resolving disputes among the South China Sea countries.
Under this cooperative regime, sovereignty claims in the area beyond 200 nautical miles would be frozen, and the coordinating agency would eliminate conflict, facilitate exploration and development of resources, manage fisheries access to the “area” would be equally available to all claimants. The legitimate passage of vessels would be allowed.
In Sum
Creative diplomacy should be maximised towards the solution of the South China dispute. It calls for conflict resolution that prevents existing disputes from escalating into clashes and limiting the spread of conflict when it occurs. This requires persuading the parties to work closely and cooperatively for conflict prevention, management and reduction. It requires efforts to sustain a co-operative spirit.
Creative diplomacy should focus on avoiding or ending violence by revolving the most immediate and overt dimensions of conflict while seeking to remove the resource of conflict altogether. Admittedly the process is a high hanging fruit and long term process which may require fine-tuning from time to time depending on circumstances and even changes in the goals, perceptions and attitudes of the conflicting parties.
An Eminent Persons Group
Creative diplomacy could be more effective, according to some observers, if a small group of carefully selected influential persons might be convened for a series of meeting to discuss and recommend solutions to the disputes.
This “Committee of Eminent Persons” might be led respected leaders from non-claimant regional countries, such as Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. Moreover an institutionalized multilateral dialogue could be initiated to supplement the above initiative.
A Code of Conduct
A Code of Conduct for the South China Sea has not been taken up seriously by China from the look of things. This does not mean however that the Asean should give up the idea. The Code should include specific measures for preventing conflict over fishery disputes or accidental military encounters. Such provisions could cover incidents involving warships, military aircraft and naval auxiliaries; identify navigational rights; permit surveillance, but not in such a way as may embarrass or endanger the platform under surveillance.
Once a Code of Conduct is agreed on, the claimants could consider measures to transform the area of dispute into a zone of cooperation, first for fisheries, with gradual demilitarisation and eventual multilateral development of such resources as hydrocarbon and other mineral resources. More importantly it can provide for a South China Sea maritime safety and surveillance regime and coordination among claimant countries.
Philippine Posture
In the meantime this country should not let its guard down it should continue to rely on the mutual defense agreement with its ally the U.S. while cultivating security arrangements with friendly neighbors like Japan, Vietnam and whoever. In the case of the U.S. however it would be enough for the U.S. to give this country a credible defense force without insisting on American boots on Philippine soil which would appear to the Chinese as act more aggressive than defensive. Moreover the stationing of military hardware manned by Americans in our soil would be a magnet for Chinese attack in case the pushing becomes a shoving match between the two superpowers in the area. Last but not the least military preparedness at home is an urgent necessity starting with a revival of a citizens army like the ROTC.