THINKING PINOY
RJ Nieto
Let us be clear about the primary interest of the Filipino people, which I believe is to provide the most comfortable life possible for a vast majority of Filipinos in the shortest amount of time possible. Note the use of additional terms “possible” and “vast majority,” because we should acknowledge that we do not live in an ideal world, so that optimal solutions are often less than ideal.
Such solutions can be social, political, and economic. However, given that the Philippines is still a developing country with a significant chunk of the population living below the poverty line, I believe that we will all agree that physiological needs should be the top priority, with safety and security coming in at a close second.
The South China Sea dispute resonates in different ways to different Filipinos. To some, it’s for the hydrocarbon deposits that are essential to energy security and thus, continued economic development. To some, it’s the plight of Filipino fishermen who want to fish in its waters. To some, it’s the defense of territorial integrity.
Simply put, Filipinos want one or more of the following in the South China Sea: Fuel, food, and territory.
Unlike the Sabah issue, the ongoing sea dispute is over a bunch of rocks in the middle of the sea, rocks that have no immediate use for us. Hence, the defense of territorial integrity falls under the secondary interest of safety and security. Fuel and food, however, fall squarely within physiological needs, which is our primary interest.
The South China Sea conflict looks like a territorial issue at first glance: Both the Philippines and China want the same islands, and neither is willing to share. With such a situation, a realistic, sustainable, and low-intensity solution is virtually impossible.
Given the discussion above, however, we can see that the Philippines’ underlying primary interest is not really territory but the exploitation of fuel and food resources, fuel and food that directly address our physiological needs. Put bluntly, far more Filipinos have died from poverty, hunger, and disease than Chinese missiles and ammunition.
Hence, the original question has now morphed into whether our primary interests – fuel and fish – clash with the primary interests of China. Because if they don’t, a solution is more likely to be had. And luckily for both parties, they don’t.
China’s primary interest, which drives its attempt at dominating the disputed area, is protecting its economy. About 80 percent of Chinese energy imports and 40 percent of Chinese international trade pass through these waters. Hence, ensuring continued access to the area is of strategic importance to them: It is a matter of national survival.
Unfortunately, the worsening rivalry between China and the United States threatens this, and China sees the Philippines' staunchly pro-US reputation as a threat.
I, as a Filipino, am neither pro-China nor pro-US: I am just pro-Filipino. And with that said, I am for pursuing our Filipino interests more than anybody else’s. And that is why I support the idea of an independent foreign policy for the Philippines.
If we rehabilitate our international reputation from being a US satellite to a neutral nation (e.g., Switzerland, Finland, or Singapore) US rivals will cease seeing us as a threat. In as far as the South China Sea conflict, what many Filipinos see as our current rival – China – won’t feel as threatened anymore, thus putting both sides in a better position to find a win-win solution.
But enough with the motherhood statements: Let’s get brutally logical about it.
The Philippines’ options for approaching the South China Sea issue can be split into two categories: (1) hostile and (2) friendly.
Hostile approaches can be categorized into (1.1) military and (1.2) non-military.
Critical to the hostile military approach is the 1951 RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) which is riddled with strategic ambiguities that allow the US government to interpret it based on its current interests. Case in point, it’s clear that MDT failed to stop Chinese land reclamation, failed to prevent the harassment of Filipino fishermen, and failed to enable our exploitation of hydrocarbons in the South China Sea.
More importantly, war should be the last option: We do not want to lose Filipino lives.
Now, the hostile non-military approach – megaphone diplomacy – is basically screaming onto China until she yields to our demands. Experience has shown that this is futile, with the best example being Mischief Reef that China has continuously occupied since 1994, despite the boatloads of “diplomatic protests” that we have filed.
As they say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yet here we are, doing the same “diplomatic protest” strategy over the Whitsun Reef (Julian Felipe Reef), and hoping that China will bow down this time.
If anything, such moves can anger not only the Chinese government but also the Chinese public, which then forces China to respond adversely. For example, the Chinese ban on Philippine banana exports in 2012, further impoverished the already impoverished Mindanao. Sure, Western cultures may still consider “megaphone diplomacy” as diplomacy. However, Asian cultures that put a premium on “saving face,” “megaphone diplomacy” is an oxymoron.
If hostile approaches don’t work, logic dictates that we should resort to friendlier approaches to the dispute. And why I say friendlier, it means a greater willingness to compromise to in order to more easily find the middle ground.
Friendly approaches can be split into two categories: (2.1) Multilateral and (2.2) Bilateral. While some Filipino hawks like former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio see multilateralism as friendly, China doesn’t see it that way, considering the concept of “saving face.” Besides, we have already tried the multilateralism, like when we tried and miserably failed to rally the support of ASEAN nations. Why? Because our Southeast Asian neighbors care more about their own people than ours, as they should.
If the multilateral “friendly” approach doesn’t work, then logic dictates that we should try the last option: The bilateral friendly approach.
President Duterte did this in 2016 when, after declaring a reduction in US-PH military exercises, he visited Beijing and, despite his notorious machismo, swallowed his pride and spoke one-on-one with Chinese President Xi Jinping and without the interference of any other country.
One thing led to another, and the Philippines was eventually able to lift the moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea in October 2020.
Recall our primary interests: Fuel, fish. The previous administration under Aquino adopted a largely hostile approach, and we got neither. Duterte’s friendlier stance, however, has significantly addressed one, and that’s fuel. Yes, the fish problem is still there, but solving one problem is better than solving none.
Now, recall our secondary interest: Territory. Five years into his term, friendly Duterte has yet to lose Philippine territory. This is in stark contrast to the hostile Aquino, who lost Panatag Shoal early on his second year.
Sure, lots of bickering still happen between the Philippines and China, but the tangible gains with the friendlier stance cannot be denied, especially when juxtaposed to massive losses when we were still hostile. That is, we have taken the first step.
No, a friendlier stance is not a pro-China policy but a mere recalibration for the fulfillment of a genuinely independent Philippine foreign policy.
For when you are too far to the right, going to the middle necessitates moving a bit to the left.
For comments and reactions, please email [email protected] or visit Facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy