The Manila Dialogue on the South China Sea is currently being held at the Grand Hyatt Manila in Taguig City. The three-day conference is sponsored and supported by various embassies, political non-government organizations and think-tanks. The coordinating organization of the event is the group We Protect our Seas and the Stratbase Institute.
During the opening reception on Nov. 5, Stratbase Institute president and chief executive officer, Prof. Victor Andres Manhit said that the Philippines and the rest of the international community must assert that the South China Sea, as a global commons, should remain a zone of peace, stability and inclusive prosperity.
He said that only the rule of law must prevail, “No single country should be allowed to assert dominance over others. It is imperative that we actively resist and expose actions that seek to turn the South China Sea into a theater of Chinese expansionism.”
Some of the speakers, the organizers explained, are attending in their own private capacity, but it became clear how they inevitably echo the stands of the countries they represent, if not their respective governments.
Ambassadors of the embassies of Canada, Australia, France, Japan and Germany all declared that their countries have legitimate and urgent concerns over developments in the South China Sea—or as it is known in the Philippines, the West Philippine Sea (WPS)—given that is a maritime space that underpins international trade, energy flows, food security and ecological sustainability.
Filipinos representing various academic institutions and agencies, as expected, were united in reaffirming that the Philippines’ position on the South China Sea is firmly anchored on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and the binding 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).
Ambassadors, for their part, all gave their insights on the importance of upholding multilateralism by strengthening partnerships. They underscored the importance of promoting a rules-based international order, and countering unilateral actions that undermine international law and norms.
Australia, in particular, said that “it believes in the importance of all states being able to exercise their rights and freedoms, including freedom of navigation, under international law, especially the Unclos.
Amb. Marc Innes-Brown in an earlier statement said that Australia fully supports the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award as final and legally binding on the parties.
“The Philippines and Australia are stepping up military cooperation to promote regional security, which is a cornerstone of economic prosperity, as tensions with China flare up in the WPS,” he said.
In August, Philippine, Australian, American and Canadian military forces engaged in joint exercises called Exercise ALON 2025. “ALON” stands for “Amphibious Land Operation.”
The Philippines and Australia are also negotiating for a Defense Cooperation Agreement that will be finalized in 2026.
China consented to the Unclos
China also had its share of defenders in the dialogue. Dr. Wu Shicun, founding president of China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS), said that the arbitral tribunal which ruled in favor of the Philippines had “no jurisdiction” over the case.
“The tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to this case, my arguments are, number one, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is illegal. It improperly touches a point that is of the land of the territorial sovereign because the substantive issue between China and the Philippines is not part of the interpretation of Unclos, it is about a sovereign dispute,” Wu said.
In a separate interview prior to the Dialogue, the Chinese academic had said one of the causes of the instability in the South China Sea is the interference of the United States (US). He said that the US has taken the opposing side against China, and its interference as well as the actions of “other claimants” in the South China Sea dispute who are trying to solidify their vested interests are exacerbating the situation.
According to Wu, the South China Sea Arbitration almost completely denies China’s claims in the South China Sea. He even justified the installations and artificial islands built and maintained by China in the Spratlys Islands (Kalaayan Islands) by saying that reclamation is a countermeasure to the arbitration, as well as an “ initiative to change the unfavorable strategic status of China in the Spratly, which is reasonable and lawful.”
Wu’s assertions were debunked by former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
“By joining Unclos, China consented to arbitration, and the tribunal could decide its own jurisdiction,” Carpio said.
He pointed out that China’s own position paper that it submitted to the tribunal cited three treaties where the Philippines’ territory were described as including the disputed islands and areas.
The PCA ruled in favor of the Philippines in 2016, declaring China’s *”nine-dash line” claim invalid under Unclos, but China rejected the ruling as “null and void.”
“China gave its consent in advance. It did not attend the hearing physically, but it is understood that it gave its consent even before the proceedings started and before the decision was issued,” Carpio said. “Bajo de Masinloc, which China calls Huangyan Island, is within the Philippine territory based on historical records and on various laws, most recent of which is the Philippine Maritime Zones Act.”
Carpio is also the chair of the WPS Philippine Advisory Board.
China’s claims came late
François-Xavier Bonnet from the Institute for Research on Contemporary Southeast Asia (IRASEC) in his presentation said that China did not even know where the Spratly Islands were and that Filipino fishermen were mentioned in Chinese documents that Filipino fishermen were as active as the Chinese in the Spratlys before World War II. France is known to also have previously laid claim to the South China Sea and had a dispute with China on the same.
IRASEC is a French research center based in Bangkok.
“China did not make a claim on the Spratlys before World War II and it has no evidence that the Spratlys belong to it,” he shared.
He cited a previously secret report of the Department of Military Council of September 1933, where it was stated that “(…) We have only one evidence, those of the fishermen from Hainan but we have never done anything on these islands. We must calm things down with the French but allow our fishermen to continue on these islands to protect our fishing rights…”
According to Bonnet, the fishermen from Hainan became the cornerstone of the Chinese claim over the Spratlys through time, despite the fact that there is, in existence, a report of an interview with a Chinese fisherman Fu Guo He who said he had been fishing in the Spratlys between 1929 and 1937.
He is quoted as saying “Malay fishermen were also active in the area, but the Hainan fishermen did not mix with them.”
Filipino fisherfolk weigh in
Glaringly absent from the Dialogue are people’s grassroots organizations, especially fisherfolk groups. The president of the progressive organization of fisherfolk Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas (Pamalakaya Pilipinas) said that this was “unfortunate” and again exposed the “low opinion of the government and agencies of fisherfolk.”
“Fisherfolk and other ordinary Filipinos who base their livelihood on fishing should always be consulted and heard on the issue of the WPS, particularly when it comes to the economic repercussions of China’s acts of aggression and illegal annexation of the Scarborough Shoal. Everyday, it’s the fisherfolk of Zambales, Pangasinan, and Bataan who have to contend with the effects of China’s bullying activities. We know what the situation is because we live it every day,” said Pamalakaya Pilipinas chairperson and former Anakpawist Partylist Rep. Fernando Hicap.
Hicap said that China’s claims have all been proven to be weak but it stubbornly clings to its own justifications even if they had already been debunked.
“This is why China resorts to bullying tactics because it has already lost its arguments—whether the basis is history or international law,” he said.
The fisherfolk leader said that Pamalakaya Pilipinas would have been “very prepared” to give their position on the South China Sea dispute had they been invited.
“Whatever policies the leaders and experts attending the Dialogue will come out and promote would be very improved if they include the insights and experience of Filipino fisherfolk when it comes to the [contested] maritime areas of the West Philippine Sea. It is important that the sectors most affected on matters [such] as this that have an impact on security, environment sustainability and food security are consulted and heard,” he said.