THE VIEW FROM RIZAL
The latest incidents in the West Philippine Sea where some of our men in uniform suffered injuries – one of them losing a finger – have raised the level of concern among many sectors.
Even influential business organizations have expressed their worry that the incident has escalated tensions in the West Philippine Sea and those actions have to be taken to ensure that the situation is not further aggravated. We share the hope of many that the situation will not escalate to a point where the provisions of the Mutual Defense Treaty we signed with the United States may have to be invoked.
What we are praying for is an opportunity for the situation at the West Philippine Sea to cool down and prevent the countries involved from taking a step closer to an all-out armed confrontation. The two countries have to take a second look at options for a peaceful resolution to the situation in this part of the globe.
There may be several options available to the parties involved in the ongoing row for that peace resolution.
The first is a resumption of dialogue. The second is an agreement to sit down at the negotiation table.
There are luminaries in various professional fields who believe that “negotiating” with the other party may not be called for. An example is the highly-respected dean of the graduate school of law of San Beda University and columnist Father Ranhilio Aquino.
In his piece published by the Manila Times last June 19, Father Aquino wrote:
“We are asked to negotiate. We cannot negotiate away our rights, and our Constitution does not allow us to. The State is bound, by express constitutional provision: "The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens." Verba legis — "exclusively to Filipino citizens." What room for negotiation is there? The China apologists will then retort: Then, there is no solution to the problem because of your unwillingness to negotiate. But of course, there is a solution, and that is for China to abide by the law. Is that too much to ask of any country that it behaves (sic) in accordance with law?”
We share Father Ranhilio’s position. The question is, how do we get the other party to “behave in accordance with law”?
The key may be the other option: dialogue.
There is a difference between negotiation and dialogue.
“Negotiation” involves what Harvard experts in this field call “currencies of exchange”. We believe this was what was called “bargaining chips” in the past. Currencies or chips are what are offered at the negotiation table by one party in exchange for what that party wants for the other.
This, we believe, is Father Ranhilio’s point: sovereignty cannot be used as a currency of exchange or a bargaining chip at the negotiation table. It cannot be offered in exchange for the cessation of aggression by the other party.
“Dialogue”, on the other hand, does not involve currencies of exchange. It focuses on serious attempts at arriving at a shared understanding of the situation and crafting options from which viable solutions can be agreed.
“Interests” are the basis of whatever solution or consensus can be arrived at in a dialogue – the discovery of “common” and “shared” interests are the usual foundation of agreements crafted using this particular conflict resolution tool.
Can our country and the other party find a “shared interest” in the ongoing row at the West Philippine Sea? Our view is, yes – the preservation of peace in that area can be a “shared interest.” Peace can help both countries – and the other “interested parties” as well – to pursue their respective economic interests.
The highest interest, perhaps, is survival – not just of the two parties involved but the rest of the world. The failure to see this as the ultimate interest could lead to the ignition of the tinderbox that is the West Philippine Sea. To imagine the effect of such a development on the other powder kegs in various regions of the world is terrifying.
We are encouraged by the latest statement from our national officials on this matter. In a joint statement, they reiterated that the government continues “to find peaceful solutions to this issue.”
We are not in the business of instigating wars, they pointed out. “The Philippines is a responsible state; we will continue to exercise our freedoms and rights in support of our national interest, in accordance with international law,” they underscored.
We join the President in lauding the “bravery and commitment of our soldiers in the Western Command” as they did their utmost best to protect “our territorial integrity, sovereignty, and sovereign rights.”
We continue to hope that peace will win the day. ([email protected])