“We keep invoking our rights on the basis of a ruling that binds no state, and has no police powers to enforce the ruling one state refuses to recognize”
Amid the welter of exchanges on the so-called “gentleman’s agreement” by claimants to being proxies with political and foreign policy “experts,” one wonders: why cannot the President, 10 years or so younger than his predecessor, not just pick up the phone and initiate talks with the former president, to clarify the matter once and for all?
The former president explained he gave up no territory, and instead used the term “status quo” to describe his meeting of the mind with China’s President Xi Jinping.
The President can ask his predecessor to explain the parameters of that “status quo,” instead of being publicly “horrified,” and without knowing the full picture, says since it was verbal, it does not bind him, and that he is rescinding the “agreement.”
Meanwhile, commentators on the sidelines, along with their usual resource persons, have characterized the former president’s move during his incumbency as “treasonous,” and even chided the incumbent vice-president for saying she has “no comment” on the tense WPS situation.
But she does not have to comment, says the President, as foreign policy is his domain, being the “architect” of it, as our Constitution states.
A former spokesman prattles about the “secret” agreement, and is immediately denied by yet another former spokesman, who charges the former’s assertions as merely in aid of publicity.
The former president went to Malacanang to apprise his successor on what transpired during his July 2023 meeting with Xi at the Diaoyutai Guest House in Beijing, where he supposedly asked the Chinese leader to “look kindly” upon the Philippines.
Whatever other details were intimated to the President need not be shared with the public.
Since lines of communication were opened makes us all wonder why the President cannot just call his predecessor to another tete-a-tete in the palace.
That harsh words were made by the former president in a rally in Davao last January should not prevent a simple phone call and an invitation.
The President is not known to be imperious, and a call to his predecessor should not violate the protocols of his office, unless hubris now dictates otherwise.
In which case, woe unto us all, because the whole world, especially the foreign business community will read the harsh political situation as an “unstable” environment which could put their investment ventures at risk.
The same goes for the local businessmen, who fear an aggravation of political risk on top of tensions with neighboring China.
Note that China is our largest trading partner, and while they could always cut the volume of imports from us, we are highly reliant on our exports to them, from mineral ores to fruits and low value-added semi-conductor items.
Imagine if the authoritarian state clamps down on such imports from our wobbly economy?
Would it be so easy for us to find alternative markets in these times of recession and high logistics cost?
Our trade officials announced last year that after the President’s state visit to China, there will be a flood of durian fruit imports from us.
Two weeks ago, the Chinese rejected so many tons of our durian fruit exports supposedly due to “cadmium contamination.”
Again, I repeat my question about why the President cannot just talk things over with the former president, and this time ask why we cannot deal bilaterally with our big neighbor to our northwest, and come up with mutually acceptable terms of agreement on issues from our fishing rights to possible joint exploration of whatever resources lie beneath the reefs and seas of the disputed waters.
We keep invoking our rights on the basis of a ruling that binds no state, and has no police powers to enforce the ruling one state refuses to recognize.
And we call upon an ally to intervene, when that ally has not deigned it worthy to its national interest to be a signatory of the same UNCLOS we invoke, and pound hard on a “rules-based order,, in the vain hope our “adversary” can be shamed enough to follow such rules, when it knows full well our ally is just using us to advance their own interest.
Given all this, why can’t we parley with each other and seriously pursue temporary compromises without each other losing face, nor losing claims?
For half a century now, we have kept quiet on Sabah, after the President’s father failed to retrieve that valuable piece of land over which our historic claim by way of transfer from the Sultanate of Sulu is quite valid.
But with a powerful China, which has not invaded us any time before, and with whom we have shared a long history of friendly trade, we call on “big brother” and its proxies.