REASSESSING OUR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS

Even as the Philippines is not to be cowed, according to the Palace, by China's recent deployment of a large patrol ship at the Scarborough Shoal (PDI, 4/21/2012), such report cannot but also ring an alarm bell to our Department of Foreign Affairs.  With neither favoring China nor hurting my nationalistic sensibilities, allow me to discuss the basic reasons why.

Both China and the Philippines appear to have reasonably valid historical claims to the Shoal -- once upon a time called Huangyan Island by the Chinese and Bajo de Masinloc (now Panatag Shoal) by Filipinos.  However, from the standpoint of more recent documents, these disputed waters inside the West Philippine Sea (a rather undue alteration of  the "South China Sea"  that we learned from our grade school Geography)  were not included in the territorial lines defined in the Treaty of Paris (1898), whereby Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States.   Neither were they part of our territorial boundaries as enunciated in the 1935 charter, nor in Republic Act No. 3046, passed in 1991 and otherwise known as An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Seas of the Philippines.  Of course, the disputed shoal  is closer to the Philippines than to China and must theoretically belong to us  by virtue of the UNCLOS (United Nations Conventions on the Laws of the Sea).  Unfortunately, since it appears that neither China nor the Philippines was a signatory to that convention, China is not strictly bound by its covenants.

As things are, two alternatives are open to us:  to continue our bilateral negotiations with China (the DFA eagerly pursues it)  -- ideally towards our two countries' joint peaceful exploration of the contested waters' marine resources (this was proposed by Sen. Ralph Recto recently)  Or, that failing, to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS).  Even so, no light seems to beckon to us at the end of the tunnel on either option.  That is quite understandable, firstly,  with China in fact now openly reinforcing its marine patrol base along the contested territories following the April 10 impasse; secondly, given that the jurisdiction of such international courts as ITLOS are essentially based on consent, meaning China must willingly go with us to the tribunal and submit to voluntary arbitration, which option China had once rejected.  Methinks the latter constraint necessarily makes virtually self-deceiving a recent statement of Presidential spokesman, Ricky Carandang, that our legal team is actually already preparing to unilaterally go to the ITLOS.   I likewise refuse to believe that our existing defense relationships and  "balikatan" exercises with US troops could  urge without ado Mother America to come to our succor based solely on our territorial dispute with China.  
   
A curious question aches for an answer at this juncture!  Is our claim to the Scarborough Shoal indeed so crucial to our national sovereignty and overall interest as to make as forget that very seldom does  a David  beats a Goliath?  I mean, ours should be a foreign relations policy that is anchored on relative, not on absolute, terms, one amply tempered with flexibility and pragmatism and guided solely by an ultimate aspiration for our people's welfare and the lasting security of our Republic.  Premised on the new realities and hostilities now clearly surrounding China's position on the Shoal, it is becoming compellingly logical that we write off our existing claim thereon, as prudent finance managers would their uncollectible accounts.   Incidentally, it also behooves that we extend the same decisive thinking towards our long dormant claim to Sabah in North Borneo. while remaining relatively steadfast and vigilant in our claim to the Spratlys.  The first is in sincere recognition of the fact that the Filipino-Sabahans had voted in already two referendums in the early sixties, expressing their preferred allegiance to Malaysia;  the second is given the municipality of Kalayaan in our Palawan province that we have so far peacefully established there. Then, only then, may we perhaps pleasantly congratulate ourselves, saying: "what does it profit a nation to lust for extra territories if it fails to at least exercise its plain common sense?"