Policy matter

As president, Duterte believed engaging China in constant dialogue was the best way to deal with the maritime problem during his six-year presidency.

Lately, some unfair allegations of treason have been thrown at former President Rodrigo Duterte regarding the so-called “gentleman’s agreement” revealed by former spokesperson Harry Roque about the previous administration’s West Philippine Sea policy.

Duterte did not have to explain the unconventional position described then as an independent foreign affairs policy. Among the functions of a President is to craft the country’s approach to the international community.

The former President strayed from the regimen of a close alliance with the Americans, which, in his belief, would have been most effective at the time since China was in an agitated state after the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued its ruling in 2016 invalidating its nine-dash line claim.

He was consistent about finding a way for Filipino fishermen to continue with their livelihood in the quickest way possible. At the time, harassment of Filipino fishermen by Chinese vessels was on the rise.

In a recent briefing in Davao City, Duterte said no Philippine territory was surrendered during his term, and the agreement with China was for the status quo. He explained that the arbitral ruling was continually raised to President Xi Jinping.

The late Philippine Ambassador to China, Chito Sta. Romana recounted how, instead of surrendering territories, the country regained some of the features or areas it had lost access to before Duterte.

He said that shelving the arbitral award did not diminish the country’s claims in the WPS.

What was done “was not to give up the claims but to develop relations. If you look at it, I don’t think we lost an inch of territory; I think we gained,” Sta. Romana had said.

The context then was the Duterte administration took over from the belligerent relations between China and the Philippines during the term of the late President Noynoy Aquino when fishing areas in the WPS were shut to Filipinos by the Chinese.

“There was a consensus to keep it as a maritime, as a fishery area. Whereas before we had a problem with Ayungin, the supply lines and the same with Pag-Asa, now we were able to continue with the supplies,” Sta. Romana said.

As president, Duterte believed engaging China in constant dialogue was the best way to deal with the maritime problem during his six-year presidency.

“If you deal with China in a hard way, in a hardball manner, you will face the same equally hard, if not harder, approach. This is an important lesson from history,” explained Sta. Romana, who had resided in Beijing for a long time.

Like Aquino, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is pressing the country’s territorial claims based on the arbitral ruling — a policy that Filipinos support based on recent surveys.

Vietnam also took a tough approach to asserting its claim against China in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Soviet Union then backed its ally, which resulted in border clashes.

Vietnam moderated its position after the Soviet Union collapsed and has been negotiating with China ever since.

Vietnam and China agreed to share gulf resources by almost 50-50.

“So, it is when you start to talk, and you start to negotiate, and the key is preparation and strategic patience as well as a good negotiating team because the Chinese negotiate very seriously, and it takes time; they will try to outlast you, if possible,” Sta. Romana said.

In the sea dispute, China uses so-called gray zone tactics, which are engagements below an armed conflict that aim to wear down the opponent to submission.

Thus far, the tactic has backfired since the Marcos administration has been countering with an aggressive transparency stratagem drawing in the international community, which has criticized the bullying.

The long and short of it is that as president, Duterte was mandated to be the architect of foreign policy, and there was no clandestine deal since it was unnecessary.

*****

Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph