'Right makes might'

The following is the “intervention” of Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario during the plenary session of the 2nd East Asia Summit (EAS) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting last Thursday in Phnom Penh, Cambodia:     

I appreciate Secretary Clinton’s statement. I also stand by the foreign minister of Indonesia who said that consistent with the EAS’ objectives, the EAS must respond in a timely manner to important developments. I express satisfaction for the statement of the representative of Brunei on giving focus to issues of concern related to peace and stability in the region. I also express appreciation to the foreign minister of Thailand who stressed the import of regional peace and stability and the need to tackle pressing issues, even if they are contentious. Let us also be reminded that our leaders had determined last year that regional issues should be given primacy.  

The East Asia Summit is a “forum for dialogue on broad strategic, political and economic issues of common interest and concern with the aim of promoting peace, stability, and economic prosperity in East Asia.”

In this context, I wish to bring to this body’s attention a subject which directly bears on the future direction of the EAS, in relation to its avowed objectives. How we respond to this subject would test the relevance of the EAS in this changing and increasingly complex regional environment.

Please allow me to refer to a member-State’s aggressive infringement on Philippine sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine sovereign rights over its Exclusive Economic Zone, which poses a threat to regional peace and stability.

Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal, is an integral part of the Philippines and is about 124 nautical miles from the coast of our Luzon island. In contrast, the shoal is nearly 500 nautical miles from the nearest coast of that member-State. The waters of the shoal are well within the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines. 

Over the years, foreigners who engaged in illegal fishing and poaching had been arrested by our law enforcers. The Philippines also registered its lighthouse in the shoal before the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It was also used as a gunnery range by Philippines and US military forces. To the best of our knowledge, none of these actions had elicited any protest from any country, even from that member-State. The Philippines has exercised long, continuous, and peaceful jurisdiction over the shoal.

However, last April 8, the member-State’s maritime surveillance vessels travelled nearly 500 nautical miles from its coast, and for the first time prevented, with the threat of use of force, Philippine authorities from arresting fishermen from that member-State who were poaching for endangered species within our EEZ. Further, the member-State intimidated Philippine law enforcers to leave the shoal; in effect, driving us out from our own EEZ.

The Philippines has been approaching this issue with patience and with tolerance as we try to avail ourselves of all peaceful means to resolve it in accordance with the rule of law.

However, the member-State has escalated the tensions in the shoal by deploying its vessels in increasing numbers; at one point, numbering 77. In contrast, Philippine presence in the area consisted of not more than three vessels, but most of the time just one. To defuse the tension, the Philippines forged an agreement with the member-State for the simultaneous pullout of all vessels inside the shoal, which we undertook in good faith last June 4. Yet, the member-State did not fulfill its end of the bargain and has maintained its ships inside and outside the shoal, in its aim to establish effective control and jurisdiction in the shoal and its surrounding waters. Further, by various means, the member-State has applied economic pressure on the Philippines to impose its will.

This alarming development is part and parcel of the member-State’s creeping imposition of its claim over the entire South China Sea. In the case of the Philippines, it began with the member-State’s occupation in the mid-90s of Panganiban Reef, also known as Mischief Reef, which is about 125 nautical miles from the coast of our island-province of Palawan. In 2010, the member-State harassed a survey ship which was conducting seismic survey in our Recto Bank or the Reed Bank which is about 85 nautical miles from Palawan, and nearly 600 nautical miles from the nearest coastline of the member-State. In 2011, this member-State’s creeping assertion has moved much closer to our coast. It tried to assert sovereignty over oil blocks 3 and 4 which are continental shelves located only about 60 and 30 nautical miles, respectively, from our island of Palawan. And early this year, as I had recounted previously, this member-State moved to the shoal. At present, its vessels continue to move in and out of the shoal.

This member-State’s actions are gross violations of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea and the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force or threat of use of force. 

Mr. Chairman,

Excellencies,

If Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction can be denigrated by a powerful country through pressure, duplicity, intimidation, and the threat of use of force, the international community should be concerned about the behavior of this member-State which has negative implications to the overall peace and stability and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

The Philippines has consistently advocated, in both words and deeds, a peaceful and rules-based approach in resolving disputes, in accordance with international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is our firmly held position that the rule of law is the great equalizer among States.

In keeping with this, the Philippines actively participated in identifying the main elements of the Code of Conduct and, in this regard, expresses its appreciation for the hard work of our ASEAN colleagues. We look forward to the early conclusion of a binding Code of Conduct with China.

In this modern day and age of interdependence, the dictum that “might is right” should have no place in the community of States. Instead, the principle that “right is might” should govern the relations among peace-loving nations.