What did Duterte mean?

When in China, President Duterte’s last words to Filipino and Chinese businessmen were “I declare in this venue the Philippines’ separation from the United States.” The words drew wide applause. It was clear and simple. Yet, there were different interpretations of what he had said from some cabinet members and media. Some said it was because he was not fluent in English and that if he had he would have used softer, more diplomatic words to say what he meant. The pro-Americans said he should not make friends with China at the expense of America. The meaning which he meant was separation and not divorce or anything drastic. But I thought the statement was emphatic enough.

 More revealing was the wide applause from the crowd – it was a spontaneous reaction to what he said. It is the applause which gave it the meaning and that the rest of the world agreed with him and marveled at his courage in daring to say it to be understood by everybody.

Think of how many interpretations could be made with a few words. But said in Duterte style, it was effective. If it was said in anything it would have fallen flat, but the truth came shining through because it was said so plainly that I will concede that his style of speaking best illustrates his meaning. What he says and what he means are one. It addressed the most important issue of relations between the Philippines and America and that it needed to be made during his state visit to China.

It reversed the policy pursued by the Aquino administration on the South China Sea conflict between the two superpowers. The Philippines was caught in the middle. The Americans did not hesitate to use its neocolonial dominance over the Philippines and as I now suspect was the real reason why former President Noynoy Aquino was put in power to implement a part of the pivot to the region. I am not the first to say that the Philippines, once again was used for America’s drive for geopolitical supremacy in the region.

* * *

 A fisheries agreement may be only a small part of easing the conflict, but it will be a good test of how the new relations between the Philippines and China under President Duterte will be implemented.  After all, that is how the animosity began.

Then again the incident had different interpretations on just who started the fight for the fishing grounds. I had tried to meet with Filipino fishermen when I was told that Filipino fishermen could not understand why they should be fighting. They were friends and shared the fishing grounds. Filipino fishermen said they even had meals together when they met at sea. China has nine maritime neighbors (including Taiwan) but no settled maritime boundaries.

According Isaac B. Kardon who has studied the problem it was in part because of China’s unwillingness to specify its maritime claims.

“Only one partial exception to this imprecision exists: a boundary agreement with Vietnam to delimit the northern part of the Gulf of Tonkin and a fishery agreement establishing a joint fishing regime in that area, both reached in 2000.”

Karadon says “the agreements between China and Vietnam have both positive and negative lessons.

The Philippines has to look at how the two countries came to agree. We also have a scholar, Ambassador Alberto Encomienda who wrote important articles. Therefor there are precedents and these can help us as important precedents. This was not done at all by the Aquino government or the Department of Foreign Affairs Indeed, it was used as the cause of hostilities.

 With the new stance of President Duterte towards China this issue of fishing grounds should  be revisited. It shows it is possible for China to come to the bargaining table on maritime disputes.

 Called the Tonkin agreements it enabled future deals among countries with claims and disputes on fishing agreements.

“Leaders in both China and Vietnam authorized their diplomats to negotiate formal boundaries governing about 36,000 square nautical miles of productive fisheries and potentially lucrative hydrocarbons. The deal emerged from three separate rounds of negotiation (1974, 1978-1979, and 1992-2000), with the last being a whole-of-government effort featuring input from senior party leaders, provincial governments, stakeholder agencies, and technical and scientific experts.”

“The negotiations and friendly relations “helped establish organizational and individual connections that were indispensable to the final settlement. Wang Yi, the current PRC foreign minister, was China’s lead negotiator and presumably knows what is required, politically and organizationally, to achieve future settlements. Comparable, substantial investment of official time and political energy is possible and necessary for future deals.

So too with the Philippines, It must sit down and discuss particular agreements and a management committee which can be called on when there are fishing disputes.

The Sino-Vietnamese boundary and fishery agreements showed that China is capable of substantial compromise in maritime disputes.

“The agreements established several precedents that ought to be remembered and publicized. Modesty about the agreements’ wider applicability is also necessary. Still, Chinese leaders and experts, in particular, should be encouraged to review the diligent process and salutary outcome of that earlier era of diplomatic compromise as they set out to stabilize China’s troubled maritime frontier and secure a peaceful rise.”

Ambassador Alberto Encomienda proposed the same kind of of approach to  fishing grounds conflict and went as far as to say that all coastal areas bounded by the sea should come together for mutual cooperation.

He even started a blog which he called “Balik Balangay” on the management of the sea. Not surprisingly he was completely ignored by DFA officials as being “pro-China.” I remember we met with Vietnam’s political attache to study how to put  together the studies.