Philippines' South China Sea Policy: ASEAN Challenges

Mas Hadi Digital Media

You need 6 min read

·

Post on Nov 16, 2024

53 visitor like this post

Share

Philippines' South China Sea Policy: ASEAN Challenges

The South China Sea (SCS) dispute remains a significant geopolitical challenge, with the Philippines playing a crucial role due to its proximity to contested islands and its active pursuit of international law. This article delves into the Philippines' South China Sea policy, highlighting the complexities and challenges it faces within the context of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). We will examine the historical context, the legal basis of the Philippines' claims, its bilateral and multilateral strategies, and the inherent difficulties in achieving a unified ASEAN response.

Historical Context: A Legacy of Disputes

The Philippines' claim to parts of the SCS stems from its historical fishing rights and its claim to the continental shelf based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, these claims are contested by China, which asserts historical rights based on its "nine-dash line," a demarcation encompassing a vast swathe of the SCS. This ambiguous claim overlaps significantly with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of several ASEAN members, including the Philippines. The historical context is further complicated by overlapping claims from Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, creating a web of competing interests and historical narratives.

The situation has escalated in recent decades, marked by increased Chinese assertiveness, including the construction of artificial islands, the militarization of these features, and the harassment of Filipino fishermen in traditionally Filipino fishing grounds. These actions have significantly impacted the Philippines' sovereignty and its access to vital marine resources.

Legal Basis: The Philippines and UNCLOS

The Philippines' legal strategy rests heavily on the UNCLOS, which it ratified in 1984. The landmark 2016 arbitral ruling, brought by the Philippines against China, unequivocally invalidated China's nine-dash line claim, affirming the Philippines' sovereign rights over its EEZ. This ruling, while legally binding on both parties under UNCLOS, has been largely ignored by China. This defiance highlights the limitations of international law in the face of a powerful state unwilling to comply with international norms. The Philippines' consistent reliance on this ruling, however, remains a cornerstone of its legal strategy and a powerful tool in its diplomatic efforts.

Bilateral Strategies: Navigating the Complex Relationship with China

The Philippines has pursued a complex strategy involving both confrontation and cooperation with China. While firmly upholding its legal rights based on the arbitral ruling, the Philippines has also sought to maintain a working relationship with China, recognizing its economic importance. This balancing act is delicate, requiring skillful diplomacy to avoid compromising its sovereignty while securing economic benefits and avoiding escalation. This necessitates navigating a difficult relationship, finding common ground where possible while firmly defending its maritime rights.

Bilateral negotiations often struggle to make significant headway, reflecting China's reluctance to seriously engage with the arbitral ruling and its assertive actions in the SCS. The Philippines faces a constant dilemma: the need to maintain a pragmatic relationship with China for economic and other reasons versus the need to protect its sovereign rights and the rights of its fishermen.

Multilateral Strategies: The Role of ASEAN

The Philippines has actively engaged in multilateral efforts within ASEAN to address the SCS dispute. However, ASEAN’s approach has been hampered by its principle of consensus, which often prevents the organization from taking a firm stand against China's actions. The lack of a unified ASEAN stance reflects the differing interests and sensitivities of member states, some of whom maintain closer economic and diplomatic ties with China. This internal division weakens ASEAN's collective bargaining power and hinders its ability to effectively counter China's assertiveness in the SCS.

The Philippines has consistently advocated for a rules-based regional order based on international law, urging ASEAN to adopt a stronger, more unified position. It has pushed for the complete and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the timely conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC). However, progress on the COC has been slow, reflecting the difficulties in reaching consensus among ASEAN members with varying perspectives on China.

Challenges for the Philippines and ASEAN

Several significant challenges hamper the Philippines’ efforts and ASEAN’s collective response:

1. China's Assertiveness: China's continued disregard for international law and its aggressive actions in the SCS remain the biggest obstacle. Its military buildup and economic leverage create significant pressure on smaller claimant states like the Philippines.

2. ASEAN's Internal Divisions: The diversity of interests and sensitivities within ASEAN, coupled with the principle of consensus, often leads to diluted and ineffective responses to China’s actions. Some ASEAN members prioritize economic ties with China over a unified stand on the SCS issue.

3. Balancing Economic Interests and Security Concerns: The Philippines, like many ASEAN members, faces the difficult task of balancing its economic dependence on China with its security concerns regarding China's actions in the SCS. This requires a delicate balancing act that can be challenging to maintain.

4. The Limitations of International Law: While the 2016 arbitral ruling provided a legal basis for the Philippines' claims, enforcing the ruling against a powerful state like China remains a significant challenge. International pressure and multilateral mechanisms often fall short of effectively deterring China's actions.

5. The Need for a Stronger Regional Architecture: The current regional security architecture struggles to adequately address the SCS dispute. A stronger, more unified regional mechanism is needed to promote cooperation and uphold international law effectively.

Conclusion: A Path Forward

The Philippines' South China Sea policy is a complex and multifaceted undertaking. It requires navigating a delicate balance between upholding its sovereign rights, maintaining pragmatic relations with China, and working within the often-fragmented framework of ASEAN. The path forward requires a multifaceted approach:

• Strengthening ASEAN Unity: A more unified ASEAN approach is crucial. This necessitates addressing internal divisions and finding common ground on strategies for dealing with China.

• Enhancing International Cooperation: Increased collaboration with other international actors, such as the US, Japan, Australia, and the EU, can provide support and leverage in dealing with China.

• Prioritizing the Implementation of the COC: Timely completion and effective implementation of a robust and legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea is essential to establish a stable and predictable environment.

• Maintaining a Firm Stand on International Law: The Philippines must continue to uphold its rights based on the 2016 arbitral ruling and actively advocate for a rules-based order in the SCS.

The South China Sea dispute is far from resolved. The Philippines' policy, though challenging, remains a critical element in shaping the future of the region. Its success hinges on its ability to effectively navigate the complexities of regional politics, international law, and its relationship with China while fostering stronger unity and cooperation within ASEAN. This is a long-term endeavor that requires sustained commitment and skillful diplomacy.