Q&A: Philippine foreign minister on why Duterte and Xi Jinping get along
First of all, our constitution does provide for an independent foreign policy. It is only by being independent that you can fight for your nation's interests.
So we do have a dispute even with Malaysia and Vietnam, but it doesn't make sense to get in an argument so much so that it destroys our relationships. It makes less sense picking one, whether they are the bigger one or the smaller one.
The president has one law, one philosophy, one direction for everyone. If you are willing to talk and you are willing to build mutual trust and you are willing to have an avenue to discuss our differences, including our territorial and sovereignty right claims, then we are also willing to talk.
We stopped the bleeding. In the last few years people have been shouting at each other, but no one is listening to each other. If you take the Philippines' point of view, you will understand why we were shouting. If you take the Chinese view, you will know why they were shouting ... but no one was looking at anyone else's point of view. What this led to was not only an argument with words, but it led to claimants inhabiting features where it is clear in the DOC [Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea] that we are not supposed to inhabit uninhabited features and not further complicate the situation.
President Duterte came in when there was a bad situation, and we are trying to make good of that bad situation. It's like taking over a company. If you see the assets of this company and you think you can make money and you can put it on the right track, your first task is to stop the bleeding ... so we focus first on stopping the bleeding, which is everyone " multilateral and bilateral " start discussing the issues [and] start getting the COC [code of conduct] on track, and not doing anything that will complicate matters.
China drew some red lines. We drew some red lines. For example, one of our red lines is building in uninhabited areas including Scarborough [Shoal]. Before President Duterte, there was no guarantee that they would not build. And our Western allies could not give us a guarantee that if the Chinese do build they would consider it an attack on the Philippines or claiming our territory. Our Western allies have always said they are with us but they do not get involved in territorial disputes.
The more complicated one is the area where you already have features. Do we want to live with that reality? No. We are taking all diplomatic actions about it ... including discussing it in bilateral and in some multilateral settings. However, we must understand that it is not something that can be solved by the Philippines and China alone.
Cuba is not a territory of the United States, but when they were putting missiles there, the US President then ordered an embargo. The former USSR reacted the same way when US and allies were putting missiles in Turkey. I am not saying that the Chinese are correct in putting defensive assets, if I may call it that, in these features. But if other claimants are doing it and the Western maritime powers are sailing left and right, and you have China who has 70 per cent of its trade coming through these sea channels ... If the US was China, wouldn't the US build its defensive posture around the South China Sea? So that's what I am saying " President Duterte is never a hypocrite. What is good for China, is good for Russia, is good for the US and is good for the EU. You can't say that Nato and the US have a right to national security but China doesn't have a right to national security.
The strategy of our critics is to make us explain China's position so that we sound too pro-Chinese. The reality is that there is much that the public doesn't know about. The US think tanks are independent in the sense that they are not Republican or Democratic, but they are for US interests and not necessarily for Asean, Philippine or regional interests. There are overlapping interests; they are our allies but not in everything. For example, when US think tanks bring up the buildings in the China-held features, but what about the features not held by China? There are other runways there. There are other militaries. We are not saying it's correct. We are dealing with it, whether it's a note verbale or diplomatic protest or discussion in a bilateral consultative mechanism, we are very active in this.
Two things have changed. We don't allow this dispute to define the overall relationship of China and the Philippines. We are talking but we are drawing red lines. Before we weren't talking but there were no red lines and might was right. But now we are being treated as a sovereign equal and we are being treated equally. And the red lines that we put on the table that China and the other claimants agreed to are being followed.
So we are now taking the next step. How do you jointly protect the area, the environment, and how do your people benefit. The tentative fishing agreement is much easier ... it is like a traffic and coordination problem.
But oil and gas is a little bit more difficult. If we can find a way to harness this without both countries or all countries giving up their claims, then we would have made the South China Sea a sea of peace and stability. Everyone wants to follow their own claims and then whether it is land territory or water, everyone is saying do this, do that, this is the right thing to do. Now and then you have someone who has a compromise that works for everyone and they will win the Nobel Peace Prize. The President has no intention to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but he is trying to drive the whole Asean and the claimants to a point where there is, will we kill each other ... or will we put some rhyme and reason into this and all of us get something out of it?
Negotiations are tricky ... either side walks out if you give too little or your side says you sold out. While I do believe that compromises can be based on principle, in the world of politics compromise is a dirty word. But I've discussed with [international] lawyers ... It is very clear that you cannot divide territory ... sovereignty rights by its nature is divisible because it is economic rights. It is a very good question asked by everybody be it David and Goliath and a big company or small company.
Even if you say we are negotiating with someone who has a bazooka, even if we have a sling, it is still a sling.
The arbitration award is there. Just because we don't shove it in the face of everyone in multilaterals it doesn't mean it has no value. We have public opinion. And remember, China has much at stake in having peace and stability.
There are going to be sensitive parts, and emotional parts and ups and downs in talking about the South China Sea. But we already lose if we don't try. What's the alternative? If we follow the Aquino administration strategy, we'll just be shouting and be heroes to the rest of the world for standing up for ourselves but they would continue building.
We have been inviting President Xi ... the Chinese have communicated their acceptance subject to the convenient time and we are looking towards the end of the year.
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Copyright (c) 2018. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
