Presumably within the next 45 days, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will render a decision in the arbitration case unilaterally brought by the Philippines, concerning the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim over the South China Sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
This past week the government of China took out a large advertisement in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper stating its position on the case. Of course, it is a completely one-sided “legal opinion” that the Philippines had no right to bring this case before the PCA for a variety of reasons.
In October 2015 the PCA decided that it had jurisdiction in the matter and has held hearings on the merits of the case. These hearings were also attended by observers from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Interestingly, though, the world is somewhat divided on the validity of the Philippines bringing its case to the PCA. Chinese allies Gambia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Pakistan and Russia oppose “any attempt to unilaterally impose an agenda,” and agree that nations should resolve disputes between themselves.
Further, India supports Beijing’s position that the South China Sea dispute should not be “internationalized,” but resolved by the parties concerned. Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Araby said Arab countries support China’s position on “safeguarding” its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But, obviously, it is what the United States thinks that is most important, and here the news may not be what the Philippine government wants to hear.
While the Philippines speaks of “territory”, the US talks about “freedom of navigation,” and there is a huge difference between the two. Former US presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan wrote this past week, “But before we agree to support the claims of Manila and Hanoi against China’s claims, and agree to use US air and naval power, if needed, we need to ask some hard questions. What vital interest of ours is imperiled by who owns, or occupies or militarizes the Scarborough Shoal?”
Here is the critical point of his comments: “If US rights of passage in the South China Sea are not impeded by Chinese planes or ships, why make Hanoi’s quarrels and Manila’s quarrels with China our quarrels? And no vital US interest of ours is imperiled in the South China Sea.”
In other words, as long as the Chinese occupation of the Panatag Shoal does not hinder international sea trade, why should the US be involved at all?
The US might use its military to counter an armed Chinese attack on Philippine soil. But up to that point, what can we really count on the US doing, even in the event that the PCA rules completely in our favor?
Perhaps, nothing, and that is what the government should plan for.