Use the Philippine Coast Guard

The Philippines’ response to the Spratly conflict – sending an aging navy vessel (pero the biggest naman!) ironically called Rajah Humabon – was pathetic. (Humabon requested Magellan to kill his rival Lapu-Lapu of Mactan. It was a move Humabon would regret. In allowing the Spaniards to intervene in a local quarrel he even converted to Christianity for the purpose it was he who would come under Spanish dominance).

Whatever the intention was in fielding Rajah Humabon into the South China Sea only evoked ridicule. If it were a symbolic show of force then it failed the mark. What it did was create the opposite effect. It showed we would not be able to defend our borders.

And yet if we wanted to demonstrate that the Philippines would protect its borders there would have been a better tactic. The suggestion comes from officials from past administrations: We should have used the Philippine Coast Guard whose defense of our borders is done in the normal course of duties. Had the national security council been called then, the idea of instructing the Coast Guard would have been on the table instead of the military Rajah Humabon.

The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Tanod Baybayin ng Pilipinas is the maritime law enforcement agency. It is under the Department of Transportation and Communications of the Philippines. Its other duties are to enforce laws against smuggling, illegal fishing, drug trafficking and piracy. etc. With the Spratly dispute, its mandate should be strengthened which I am told is being deliberated in the Senate.

Had we used the Philippine Coast Guard we would have shown to the world that the Philippines is peopled by intelligent leaders and citizens however poor we may be. 

*      *      *

There are other lessons from this latest outbreak on the Spratlys. Information, and how it is handled by the media, is crucial. The Spratly dispute was thrust into the headlines by local newspapers. The headlines said “that two Chinese Mig aircraft were deployed to intimidate Philippine soldiers in the Spratly islands.” When Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie had a chance to talk to his Philippine counterpart, Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, he said this could not have happened as reported in media because China does not have Mig aircraft.

The Secretary of Defense reported on his conversation with Guanglie. “He said that in the inventory of their armed forces they do not have any Mig and I told them that the armed forces has continuously denied that we were able to identify the aircraft as Migs. It remains to be unidentified.” Earlier, the Armed Forces of the Philippines confirmed that two unidentified aircraft “intruded” into Philippine air space above the disputed islands, but has yet to identify the aircraft. Yes there were, but not identified as Migs, so we do not know the kind of aircraft that intruded in our area because it was at an altitude of 20,000 and our aircraft was at 5,000 (feet), Gazmin said.

That did not get headline treatment or even prominent space. It was buried in the story. That shows that Filipinos are well advised not to believe everything they are told by local media. So who set us up for this kind of reporting? The alleged incident was not reported in foreign media. Who would read the fine print? But the damage was done. Even if officials like Gazmin and Guanglie were able to clarify the “rumor” they only did it with each other. The hostile atmosphere to revive rivalry between China and other claimants in the Spratlys was successfully created and evoked further statements from other officials and agitated the public.

*      *      *

On the surface, it looks good for Singapore to tell China to clarify “with more precision” the extent of its claims in the West Philippine Sea and South China Sea. 

But in my opinion this precision is exactly what is being avoided. So far there are no statements coming from China’s foreign ministry. I can see why. Ambiguity could also be said of other claimants and will not be defined until the issue is settled to everyone’s satisfaction. That will not come until a very long time. And to quote Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping let us leave that to the next generation.

If what is desired is a peaceful settlement, and many have already put solutions forward, then cooperation between China and other claimants is the more urgent task. Cooperative and peaceful efforts will pave the way for a time when the issue of ownership could be settled with more precision. That does not in anyway mean that cooperation is not possible unless the claims are defined. On the contrary, it is the other way around. All should work at cooperation and precise definitions put in the back burner if hostilities are to be avoided.

It is incumbent on China to lead in cobbling a strategy for peaceful dialogue and cooperation. In my opinion, projecting its power through the Haixun-31 was just as ill-advised as the Philippines’ Rajah Humabon racing (not sure at what speed) to the seas.

Informed Chinese sources have said that the question of free maritime passage is not being threatened and this policy continues. 

Still China cannot stop others from being concerned that the policy will not change in the future. It will be up to it to dispel such fears. As for the oil or minerals, again a cooperative effort is possible, may be not immediately with all the skirmishing going on. But it should be at the center of discussions. How it will be worked out, when, where by whom. China should make continuous assurances that it seeks that.

In my view China wants to be acknowledged as the emerging superpower in the region and that cannot be denied because it is. The Philippines would do well to acknowledge that fact in its search for a peaceful solution. Singapore made that clear. In asking for clarification it was not taking sides.

“It is our hope that parties to the disputes in the SCS will act with restraint to create conditions conducive to the peaceful settlement of these disputes and the continuation of peace, stability and growth,” it added. We should take the cue from that part of the statement asking parties to the dispute to “create conditions conducive to a peaceful settlement.” That enjoins not just government officials. It should also bind media, NGOs and ordinary citizens.