[OPINION] Time is at a different tale on the maritime dispute with China

Posted at 09:00, on 06 July 2018

Updated 09:00, 06 July 2018 [19659005SoonitwillbetwoyearssincethePhilippinesmassivelywontheirmaritimedisputeagainstChinaButduringthistimetheofficialstoryinthePhilippineswastheonewithstrongdefeatists

On Day 1, July 12, 2016, when the International Arbitral Tribunal rendered its decision invalidating China's 9-dash line and clarifying the status of certain characteristics of the South China Sea, this decision did not never received the national attention that she deserved. It has not been used as leverage in the country's relations with China. This is not part of the Foreign Ministry's talking points

This is not part of the country's diplomatic arsenal.

Yes, we won, say the authorities, but …

• deliverance. China will rebuild Marawi torn apart by the war. China will invest heavily in the government's "Build, Build, Build"
  program. Millions of Chinese tourists will boost our tourism industry. China is our new source of weapons.
• China is a dear friend who, unlike the European Union, is nonchalant about the deadly war that has claimed the lives of thousands of people and caused a wave of impunity. on July 12, 2016 gains, weakening the Filipino position, making the voice of our country part of China's chorus of approval in the region.

  Let's not get carried away by the official story. It's time to talk about a different story.

  Let's go back to the history of Philippines vs. China the case of historical arbitration that has reverberated in various parts of the world. As stated by a law professor from the University of Geneva, "July 12, 2016 will remain etched in the history of international arbitration".

  Let's go back almost two decades back and forth with Beijing when our diplomats affirmed the rights of Filipinos over parts of the South China Sea – to be rebuffed with its stock reaction that China had a indisputable sovereignty "over this vast area.

  Listen to our scholars, experts and diplomats on how to make use of our legal victory and start a national conversation on this crucial issue.

  Historical Case

  In my new book, Rock Solid: How the Philippines won their maritime lawsuit against China I tell the story of this victory that has given so much to the country – a maritime area larger than the total Philippines-rich resource area – but has since been neglected by the government.

  the case is historic. He is the first to interpret United Nations definitions on the Law of the Sea ( Unclos) rocks, islands and shoals; the first case to be filed by a claimant State of the South China Sea against China; and it is the first case to deal with the scope and application of the provision of the Convention on the Protection and Preservation of the Environment.

  This book explains why President Benigno Aquino III brought China before the Court. Among others, he particularly remembered the quip of a senior ASEAN leader: "There are big countries and there are small countries. It's the way of the world. "He pondered this and thought that it was precisely the law that would serve as a great equalizer.

  With this as an anchor – the law as the great equalizer – Aquino decided, with the approval of the Cabinet , Congress leaders and two former presidents, to sue China

  In January 2013, the Philippines began their legal battle and filed a "notification of declaration and claim."

  More A year later, the Philippines presented their brief, as a plea, which reached more than 3,000 pages.It was the fruit of a massive research in history, international law, geology, hydrography, In marine biodiversity and mapping, this included 10 volumes of appendices containing maps, nautical charts, expert reports, witness affidavits, historical documents and official communications.

  Near two decades written exchanges between the Philippines and China. Intelligence reports from the Navy, the Western Armed Forces Command and the Department of National Defense were also submitted to the court

  a first in the country: diplomatic cables and intelligence documents were been revealed to the public. a fascinating fascinating of our diplomatic history.

  Filipino history also unfolds in transcripts of oral hearings in The Hague that capture the essential points of the case. Paul Reichler and his team at Foley Hoag have used the richly-documented diplomatic history of the Philippines-China dispute in their arguments in court.

  These transcripts, the Philippine memorial, the awards (or court decisions) on jurisdiction and merit are available to non-lawyers like me. They can be downloaded from the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

  Consequences

  Despite the dazzling victory, why were the Philippines so saddened by a historic decision that was on their side? Why did he choose to bury a euphoric moment instead of using victory to galvanize a nation?

  The answer lies in the country's new president, Rodrigo Duterte. He had a different point of view: his heart and mind were with China.

  The Duterte government took a defeatist position despite the immensity of what the Philippines had withdrawn from the decision. Duterte once said that the Philippines was "helpless" in the face of China's power. For him, the choices to deal with China were extreme, either to speak or to wage war. He framed foreign policy in a false dichotomy.

  While the history of Philippines vs. China offers hope and inspiration, it is the following that offers more challenges. Rock Solid gives some prescriptions on how to operate the court decision, but there are certainly more ideas worth exploring.

  Many have said that international pressure can encourage the implementation of the price. Friendly countries must take the initiative of the Philippines

  In the region, the price has not only benefited the Philippines, but also to the other Southeast Asian states that claimed parts of the sea from South China. As Reichler explained, it was clear that "if China's nine-point line is invalid for the Philippines, it is also invalid for other states bordering the South China Sea such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, and the rest of the international community. "

  Making the court decision work and seeing it come to fruition, in part or in full, will take a long time, well beyond the term of a single chair.This will require strategic thinking rooted in a sense of purpose. of justice, equity and sovereign rights – Rappler.com