I must admit that I did not religiously follow the different episodes of the Philippine-China territorial dispute. That is, to an extent, an aberration, because, as a law and political science graduate, it should have greatly interested me, with all the legal principles and international politics involved.
But I do know the following circumstances surrounding the issue: I know that the Philippines has filed a case at an arbitration body at The Hague, claiming the territory on the basis of accepted principles of international law, particularly those mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
China, meanwhile, has anchored its contention on historic right. The disputed waters, they say, has been part of the ancient Chinese empire.
I also know that this dispute has significant diplomatic and geopolitical implications not just between the two countries and Southeast Asia, but for the entire Pacific basin. It is apparent that the United States has a special interest in the outcome, as it has always been wary of China’s increasing influence in the region.
And like the rest of the nation, I found out last week that the body, basically, had found our country’s contentions more tenable, a case of law trumping tradition. And like many Filipinos, I was overjoyed by the decision. To me, and I assume to a great many people in the country, the territorial dispute has long since become not just as a struggle for territory, but a fight for what is right, a question of whether it is the rule of law or the rule of intimidation that shall prevail as the primary settler of international disputes. I am aware that by every measure of wealth, influence and power, China trumps our country.
As such, I know that our only hope to prevail is if the international tribunal that we have chosen to trust will rule in our favor. And that, it did, seemingly putting the final resolution to a most contentious case. After all, both China and the Philippines signed the convention that created the deciding tribunal. This carries the presumption that both parties, particularly China, will honor its ruling. But I also understand that such a ruling, for a hegemon as China, can be reduced to mere scrap of paper—legally enforceable, but politically and diplomatically worthless. And that seems to be the case, as the body rendered its claim invalid, in addition to its assertion that it violated the sovereignty of the Philippines by fishing and building settlements on the waters.
In theory, every nation, mighty or weak, must subject itself to the rule of law. But in reality, no one dares chastising a great power, much more rule that it is absolutely wrong. China, as expected, was angered by the ruling but it is not just because it has lost its legal claim over a territory.
Perhaps, what really matters is the fact its march towards becoming THE regional power here in Asia has encountered a stumbling block. It may have all the power and wealth, but refusing to honor the ruling, after totally boycotting the proceedings, if I may add, is not as simple as it seems.
Doing so will give rise to the risk of it being branded as an outlaw; it may cause the other Southeast Asian nations to abandon their neutrality and strengthen sympathy for the Philippines and worst of all, it will provide a valid pretext for more direct involvement of the United States. China is more than ready to defy the ruling of an international tribunal, but it certainly is not when it comes to engaging in a dangerous power-play with the world’s most powerful nation, risking plunging itself into war.
For China to do so will result in a Pyrrhic victory—it may hold on to South China Sea by force, but it will certainly lose diplomatic, military and economic links that are vital for its continued rise as a power. No man is an island, as they say, and the same is also true for nations, great or small. So considering the aforementioned contexts, the ruling is indeed a diplomatic milestone for the Philippines. China may defy it but it does not change the fact that as this controversy continues, at least we have the force of law on our side.
History reveals that, ultimately, it is the one that prevails. Civilizations vanish, empires crumble and powers disintegrate, but what is just always wins out in the end. Being on the right side of an issue, much more history, always brings a difficult road, but it also brings out the same outcome—the triumph of age-old principles that mirror the basic decency of humanity and the eventual instinct of our ever-changing institutions to uphold that. On a less lofty note, it can be said that when you have the rule of law with you, public opinion will sway in your favor and with that, the chips will fall—but in your hands.
The ruling gives us diplomatic high ground, political cover and moral ascendancy to continue pursuing what is rightfully ours. Simply put, we are on the right side of history and the scales of justice are tipped in our favor on this one. So it is imperative that we must unite as a nation over this issue, educate our people about its transcendental importance so that when all has been said and done, it will always be remembered that a small country has defeated a great power not by the force of its arms but through the consistency of its unity and its undying adherence to the simple, powerful idea that at all times, no one is above the law and its ultimate role as the fulcrum of human affairs must always be respected.
*****
Fernando Victor G. Manangan, 28, holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from Isabela State University-Cauayan, where he concurrently served as the youngest student-body president in the history of the college. The views he expressed here donot necessarily reflect that of the BusinessMirror’s. Mr. Managan’s photo was taken from his Facebook page.