RECENT world developments can easily give you post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. They can be depressing. Recently, what buoyed my spirits and my mood was China’s response to the new maritime laws signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. It strongly objects to the Maritime Zones Act and the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act.
The laws define the Philippines’ maritime boundaries and designate specific sea lanes and air routes within its exclusive economic zone. They affirm the Philippines’ sovereignty and protect its maritime resources. These laws asserted international law as stipulated in the 2016 Hague arbitral tribunal ruling, invalidating China’s expansive claims in the region. China clearly takes issue with our actions. Great! We are counterpunching.
Good job, Mr. President! The House of Representatives and the Senate should be congratulated as well. Beijing protests loudly and summons our ambassador to challenge these developments, but we must continue to show the world what is happening on the ground, or more accurately, the reality in the waters. We must be resolute in erasing China’s fictional nine-dash line that has no basis in law.
Despite Chinese harassment in our own EEZ, the Philippines has maintained a rules-based approach to the maritime dispute. We cannot waver in supporting our fisherfolk who rely on these waters for their livelihood.
We can have highs and lows in this long-running contest. What is important is that we understand what China’s strategy is. It must be an understanding based on what they do, not what they say.
I subscribe to the assertion of Dr. Ashley Tellis of Carnegie Endowment that China’s nine-dash line claim is fundamentally ambiguous, though the potential for enforcing those claims is not.
There is a purposeful attempt to exploit subtlety in the service of very ambitious geopolitical goals. The nine-dash line, characterized by its ambiguity, is intended to insinuate maximum claims. It is the main reason China has avoided negotiations — particularly regional or multilateral — and arbitration. They are buying time. For them, it’s a long game, and the issue cannot be resolved in the near term.
Dr. Tellis tells us that the Chinese strategy has three facets. First, in the interim, China wants to prevent the conclusive but adverse resolution of its claims. This is until Chinese power reaches a certain level of maturity, at which point it can enforce currently vague but relatively maximalist claims.
Second, China seeks to avoid premature conflict with any of the major maritime powers that might undermine Chinese interests or force a resolution of the crisis in ways that undermine its long-term objectives. It wants to expand its privileges creepingly but wants to avoid, above all else, a showdown with any of the major maritime powers that, in a sense, forces this issue to resolution. China prefers to avoid a prematurely enhanced military presence by those parties it calls “outsiders.” It fears this might reinforce the claims of China’s smaller neighbors.
Third, China wants to revise the status quo quietly. It wants it done in a way that culminates in presenting both regional and outside powers a fait accompli that ultimately derives in the hope that all outside powers will resist paying the costs of confronting China.
The Philippines’ two new laws reject these strategies by reinforcing its maritime boundaries and affirming its sovereignty, directly challenging China’s attempts to expand its influence through ambiguity and gradual encroachment.
In this complex maritime dispute, it’s clear that we have taken a firm and commendable stand in upholding our sovereignty while adhering to intern ational law. We must remain steadfast, continuing to define and defend our boundaries despite China’s calculated aggression.
The passage of these maritime laws is a significant step in the right direction, showing the world that the Philippines will not be bullied into submission. As we face inevitable challenges in this long game, the unwavering support for our fisherfolk, the insistence on our rights, and the vigilance in our responses will serve as a powerful message. We are resilient, prepared and committed to protecting our waters and our future as a nation.
