Cultural gap between East and West

There is a far more difficult difference between the positions taken by the governments of the Philippines and China on the conflict on the South China Sea.

It is about a cultural gap on how to settle disputes. The Philippines, on one hand, having been a colony of two western powers, the United States and Spain, has opted to adopt the ways of its former masters. China, an older civilization, has gone the way of settling disputes according to their more ancient tradition and the region’s unique tributary system in its relations with smaller countries around it.

Here the Philippines (to its disadvantage and unlike its other partners in the region) has chosen to follow the Western way by its present weak leadership. It brought its case to arbitration through an international court that to the Chinese is hostile and conforms to the adversarial ways of the West.

China, in following the tradition of its centuries old Eastern culture, wants bilateral negotiations.  From its long history it believes that two individuals as it is also true with countries in conflict it is possible to talk to each other about differences and find a solution through compromise. The dispute remains but the ties are strengthened in time as neighbors learn to do things together. 

The Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s response to the conflict is for the two peoples to work together, build trust and help each other develop and manage the sea that binds them together. The Filipino exponent of cooperation through development is former Speaker Jose de Venecia. That way the next generation of both countries will see the merits of working together.

The ownership issue is not being abandoned. It is being set aside for the more important task of regional development that can be made possible only by cooperation.

The Deng Xiaoping formula says “let us continue being friends, find areas for cooperation instead of fighting about who owns what island and let the next generation worry about who owns what in time.”

There are mechanisms to bring about a mutually beneficient relationship instead of an acrimonious battle on ownership that can only hurt each other.

*      *      *

But in recent times, a third force other than the two countries in conflict has come in with no eastern patience to wait for good relations between the two countries or for a cooperative development that will benefit their peoples.

It is my opinion that the US decision to turn its might into a pivot to Asia is behind the escalating war of words and military exercises in our part of the world with a weak Philippine government at its vanguard.

And how better to carry this out than by controlling the government of the weak country through a leader who is ill-equipped intellectually to see differences and nuances, necessary for complex negotiation and compromise. It is our bad luck that we have such a naïve leader at a time when what we need most is one with a strong character and vision who sees the big picture and has the ability to navigate through the tortuous ways of diplomacy in our time.

*      *      *

The Aquino government might have gone the way of the very un-eastern way of picking a fight by filing a memorial in an international court that the US is not even a signatory of but many Filipinos do not agree with this kind of thinking.

At bottom we are Orientals and even if we experienced an unfortunate period of colonization by the West before we should now retrace the traditional ways of our ancient culture and tradition. And if it cannot be done through a weak leader with no mind of his own, we need not sacrifice the interests of the country, in the long term, least of all to sacrifice the welfare of our millions of poor to carry out a superpower’s agenda. True this is an internal problem of bad governance. We should continue to deal evenhandedly with the warring superpowers vying for hegemony in the region. We would do well if we always in keep in mind that it is the country’s interests that are paramount.

*      *      *

It is in this light that I now take up the position paper sent by the Chinese embassy to this column.

The Philippines’ initiation of and push for international arbitration has undermined China-Philippines relations. In reading it, the above observation about the gap between Eastern and Western cultures is significant.”

*      *      *

“Under normal circumstances, submission of dispute to international arbitration requires an agreement reached between the two parties concerned. Yet, the Philippine side had failed to notify the Chinese side, not to mention seeking China’s consent, before it actually initiated the arbitration. After the Philippine side initiated the arbitration, the Chinese side promptly made its position clear that China does not accept the arbitration. The Philippine side, in disregard of China’s position, has insisted on going ahead with the arbitration. What the Philippine side did seriously damaged bilateral relations with China. We find it very hard to understand these moves of the Philippines and we are deeply disturbed by and concerned with the consequence of such moves.”

*      *      *

It answers why China does not accept the arbitration.

“First, China is committed to resolving its disputes with the Philippines through bilateral negotiations.

China and the Philippines have between them territorial and maritime disputes. And it is just natural that disputes might exist between neighbors. What is important is how to resolve the disputes.

In both international law and international practices, direct negotiation between countries concerned is the most common and preferred way to resolve such disputes.

Negotiations may well take time, but agreement reached through negotiations is acceptable to both parties, and is hence the most equitable and durable.

International justice or arbitration is one way of settling international disputes, but it does not offer a solution to all problems. In reality, there have been quite a number of cases where international judicial or arbitral bodies passed a ruling, but relevant issues still remained unresolved.

It is advisable to note that to resolve disputes over territory and maritime rights and interests through negotiations by the sovereign states directly concerned is an important consensus contained in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and all ASEAN countries, the Philippines included.

Now that the document is signed, all parties should honor their commitment. Moreover, China and the Philippines also have reached explicit consensus at the bilateral level on settling disputes through negotiations.

In the joint statement on the issue of Nansha Islands released in August 1995, China and the Philippines agreed that “a gradual and progressive process of cooperation shall be adopted with a view to eventually negotiating a settlement of bilateral dispute.”