Premature deal or wishful thinking?
Last Sunday’s surprise announcement by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) of an “understanding” reached between the Philippines and China over the country’s rotation and resupply (Rore) missions to BRP Sierra Madre in Ayungin Shoal turned out to be premature, if not wishful thinking.
In a statement, DFA spokesperson Teresita Daza said officials from the Philippines and China “have reached an understanding on the provisional arrangement for the resupply of daily necessities and rotation missions” to Sierra Madre, the grounded Navy ship that serves as the country’s outpost in the West Philippine Sea.
The statement added that the arrangement was reached after “frank and constructive discussions” during the 9th Bilateral Consultation Mechanism on the South China Sea held on July 2.
The high-level meeting, attended by DFA Undersecretary Ma. Theresa Lazaro and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Chen Xiaodong, was timely, as it was held following the June 17 violent incident that had Chinese coast guards wielding knives, sticks, and an ax to block a Philippine Navy resupply mission on the shoal off Palawan.
“Both sides continue to recognize the need to de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea and manage differences through dialogue and consultation, and agree that the agreement will not prejudice each other’s positions in the South China Sea,” the DFA said in its statement.
On-site verification
The DFA, however, did not release the full text of the agreement, a move that put the agency in a bind when hours after releasing its statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in a news briefing that China had agreed to allow the resupply mission out of “a humanitarian spirit.”
The Chinese official said the resupply missions could only take place “if the Philippines informs China in advance and after on-site verification is conducted.” She added that “China will monitor the entire resupply process.”
Further, Beijing asserted its “principled” position based on three points: its demand for the Philippines to tow away the rusting ship; prior notice and on-site verification for Rore missions, and the Philippines’ commitment not to bring large amounts of construction materials to the ship for building fixed facilities and outposts.
The DFA countered that the Beijing spokesperson’s statement was inaccurate, and veered away from the agreement which was “concluded with the clear understanding on both sides that it would not prejudice both countries’ respective national positions.”
Unequivocal position
It’s outrageous to think that the DFA would agree blindly to China’s terms, given President Marcos’ unequivocal position on our claim over the West Philippine Sea, and his firm declaration that the government will not yield an inch of our territorial waters.
To acquiesce to Beijing’s insistence that the country seek China’s permission for Rore missions and allow it to “monitor” such activities, would mean entering into the same atrocious deal made by the Duterte administration that allowed China to basically control Ayungin shoal.
Duterte spokesperson Harry Roque had previously revealed a “gentleman’s agreement” between the former president and China to keep the “status quo” in the West Philippine Sea. The nonrepair of the dilapidated ship that hosts a number of Filipino troops was reportedly part of such agreement.
But why was there no document to support the existence of that secret agreement, Mr. Marcos had asked. “[A]ny agreement with another sovereign state should really be known by the people so that way, you’re accountable. If it’s a bad decision, you’re accountable,” he said in a media interview last April.
Duplicitous manner
By the same measure, the DFA must now release the full text of the new agreement on the Rore, if only to counter China’s self-serving narrative. The DFA should feel free and unencumbered in making a full disclosure, given China’s presumptuous and totally different understanding of the agreement. Clearly, this is not a case of the meaning being lost in translation, but the very essence of the duplicitous manner with which China has been dealing with the Philippines even during the unctuous Duterte administration.
If the agreement were simply about preventing clashes and collisions during the resupply missions, what should be so secret about it? Has the DFA also relented on the nature of the missions by specifying that the supplies would only be “daily necessities”?
If so, that would be a reinstatement of the Duterte deal that disallows even minor repairs to the ship, which guarantees its disintegration and eventual sinking. Such a scenario is definitely what China wants, as it would leave the Philippines no military outpost in the area to physically and symbolically assert the country’s sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea.
The DFA cannot waver on this issue now, and must come out with the unvarnished truth and verbatim text of the agreement. Do the terms uphold the country’s interest, or are they open to China’s willful misrepresentation?
