Tact and back-channeling; Japan's role

With the open quarrel between Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Antonio Trillanes, “back-channeling” has become a bad word. Some have made it synonymous with “treason.” On the contrary back channeling is a useful diplomatic tool if done properly. That is the big if.

The first mistake comes from President Aquino. He appointed the wrong person to do the delicate job of back channeling. It requires even more sophistication and background than the officials concerned. A more astute president would have appointed someone equipped to do the job.

Back channeling is not always successful but it serves as a fall back position when open negotiations are going nowhere. The nature of the job is necessarily more difficult and requires utmost discretion. It will also need the skill to align the back channel work with official policy. Again, all this could have been avoided if the President understood the sensitive nature of the South China Sea problem (West Philippine Sea according to AO 29). Back channeling, precisely because it seeks creative solutions, involves no holds-barred conversations.

That is where the second mistake comes from. Senate President Enrile was wrong in reading publicly Ambassador Sonia Brady’s notes. It did more harm than help with the ongoing negotiations. Some of the notes read were nothing new and known by everyone.

Trillanes did not need to tell the Chinese that the Philippines could not enforce its coastal protection. We are not equipped to do so. That is not being treasonous. It is a given.

He said the Philippines should have lobbied with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as China did. Even if Foreign Secretary del Rosario did I doubt it would have been useful because the other claimants had a different mind from the Philippines. It is well known the Philippines echoes American policy and its objectives in the region. In the region are countries, including China, who had been colonized and want to demonstrate they have been freed from western political domination. Still, they realize the merits of working as a body but for this purpose. They would not clash with China because it is also a major development partner. Prudence dictates not to be confrontational at this time.

*      *      *

There is no single answer to the riots against Japan in China. It is a mixture of reasons, some domestic politics and some geopolitical. On domestic politics, China watchers see the political transition from the current leadership to the incoming as one cause.

Domestic politics in Japan has also to be figured. The first spark came from controversial Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishiharo, who announced before the rightist Heritage Foundation that the Tokyo government would buy the islands that were privately owned. One thing led to another and before long the national government was persuaded to buy the islands instead. China saw this as a move to raise the bar of dispute on the islands.

*      *      *

For some time the dispute was kept under a tight lid. The Japanese summarized their policy on Senkaku: “While Japan will assert what she should assert, it is not our intention to stoke up hard line domestic opinion which will be detrimental to the national interest of both countries.” The Shintaro initiative departed from the policy of “letting sleeping dogs lie.” Suddenly the dispute was on the surface with the flurry of patrol and fishing boats to the area ending up with violent protests against Japan in the streets of China.

The policy of keeping the status quo was made since 1978 when Deng Xiaoping visited Japan. “Any issue that our generation does not have the wisdom to resolve should be handled instead by future generations,” he said (CNP: This has become known as the Deng Xiao Ping formula).

It was hoped that this policy would continue because of high economic stakes, Japan being a principal partner in China’s economic rise. Both parties aimed to keep the status quo but the purchase of the three Senkaku islands by the national government changed the situation.

*      *      *

In my opinion, China’s move to submit its claim to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea should be seen as a point of departure for a new approach to the dispute. It may not be submitting the claim for international arbitration but it is a start.

Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Le Yucheng announced the submission at a conference organized by the China Institute of International Studies, Beijing Youth Federation, and Xinhuanet.

“Early this morning, Ambassador Li Baodong, China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, deposited the coordinates table and chart of the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of China’s Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,” Le told an audience of scholars and experts.

He said the base points and baselines of the territorial sea of Diaoyu Dao (Senkaku) and its affiliated islands are in line with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, and consistent with relevant provisions of UNCLOS.

It may not be arbitration but it is at least a departure from previous insistence that China alone decides what it owns.

It should be encouraged and used to contain open confrontation so both countries can work their way back to the Deng Xiao Ping formula.

*      *      *

The Philippines should regard China’s submission to Unclos as a good step. It means that China wants its claim legally defined.

Other claimants look to Japan to lead in tackling territorial conflicts in their midst. It would be a feather to Japan’s cap if it were able to calm the region. Being both a power in the region and a claimant, its success will be more acceptable to the rest.

A reliable source told me I must make it clear that China did not file the Senkaku case to ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), as the Philippines is trying to do regarding the Spratlys.

“What China did a few days ago was to submit an application to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. This Commission is a body under UNCLOS, but unlike ITLOS, it does not have the power to resolve territorial disputes, but only to make recommendations about limits of the continental shelf based on scientific and technical guidelines.”

Together with the submission, Chinese officials also hinted at decreasing street protests over Senkaku (Diaoyu to the Chinese).