Duterte-China ‘agreement’ on Ayungin bared, jeered
Zambales province, the source said China’s understanding with the previous administration was that fishermen would be allowed in the area provided the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) would stay out of it.
Manila, however, supposedly tried to “challenge the current understanding” when it brought the PCG along with the fishermen to the disputed waters.
Both Ayungin and Panatag shoals lie within the Philippines’ 370-km exclusive economic zone.
In 1999, the Sierra Madre was deliberately grounded in Ayungin’s shallow waters to serve as an outpost asserting Philippine sovereignty in the area. The rusting ship currently hosts a small contingent of soldiers who are assigned there on rotation.
On Aug. 7, 2023, the Chinese Foreign Ministry claimed that the Philippines “promised several times to tow [the Sierra Madre] away, but has yet to act” on that commitment.
Two days later, on Aug. 9, President Marcos disputed the claim, saying he was not aware of any such arrangement.
“And let me go further, if there does exist such an agreement, I rescind that agreement now,” he said.
AFP PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
Not legally binding
On Wednesday, the National Security Council (NSC) said it was not aware of any deal between the Philippines and China regarding the Rore missions to Ayungin.
Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya, the NSC spokesperson, said he was surprised by Roque’s statement and encouraged the latter to explain how and why such a deal could have been brokered, considering its implications on national security.
“The good former secretary should be one to explain to the public his statements since such an agreement, if it exists, infringes and violates our sovereignty as a nation,” Malaya said in a statement.
According to him, the National Task Force on the West Philippine Sea has “not seen any document from the former administration that validates or confirms the existence of this so-called ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and the terms of such agreement under the previous administration.”
But maritime security expert and University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea director Jay Batongbacal said such a deal “explains Duterte’s silence in the last year of his administration when resupply ships were being harassed and water cannoned.”
‘What did they gain?’
Reached by phone on Wednesday, former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV said it was evident that the agreement was detrimental to the Philippines’ maritime claims in the disputed waters.
He said Roque’s claim was likely true considering “it was confirmed by both parties.”
“Obviously, it was disadvantageous to the Philippines. The question is, [the deal was] in exchange for what? What did the Davao group gain from it? What we know was what happened after—there were so many pro-China policies during that time,” Trillanes said.
But the former senator said he believed that China “would still act the same way” with or without the deal.
“They just want to exert their dominance in the area, whether there was such an agreement or not,” he said, adding: “They will hold on to anything that will be advantageous to them. They won’t honor any abrogation; they will hold on to the word of Mr. Duterte.”
Sole architect
Asked if Duterte should be held accountable for the agreement, Trillanes said: “Theoretically, what he did was a foreign policy. In this country, the president is the sole architect of foreign policy,” he said.
Former Sen. Leila de Lima, spokesperson for the opposition Liberal Party, said Roque’s claim “shows the duplicity of the past administration because the agreement was kept secret from the public.”
She argued that the President “cannot be bound by agreements secretly entered into by a predecessor.” —WITH REPORTS FROM INQUIRER RESEARCH, TINA G. SANTOS, NESTOR CORRALES, RUSSEL LORETO AND DEMPSEY REYES INQ
