It took the adroit diplomacy from Indonesia to come up with an agreement that gives a lot of promise on defusing tense situations in the South China Sea involving territorial claims where China is staking an aggressive claim.
Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa shuttled among Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) members to mend the rift at the recent Asean Regional Forum meeting in Cambodia where a traditional statement affirming unity and at the same time come up with a binding code on disputed territories did not materialize.
It was a mediation coup since the code of conduct that would likely come out from the issuance of the six-point Asean statement had China’s commitment to abide by.
The Chinese government would likely use the Indonesian move to illustrate the effectiveness of settling disputes within the region without the involvement of the United States which is what the Philippines wanted and was among the reasons China was vehemently against the proposed communiqué in the Asean meeting in Phnom Penh. A heated debate erupted over the mention of territorial disputes in the statement that resulted in an impassé, with the Philippines and Vietnam accusing Cambodia of being influenced by China while the Philippines and Vietnam were accused of holding up an agreement.
The agreement, if China does agree to it, may result in a long-term resolution of the conflict and it will provide a clear basis for settling disputes since it extensively referred to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) which the country has been pushing as basis for dispute settlement.
In the end, China seems only to be after a measure of respect on recognizing its capability of resolving disputes that had festered in the region for so long.
With the Unclos as basis, China would show it is willing to abide by international norms on its South China Sea claims.
China’s position had always been bilateral or at most regional settlement of disputes and making it to commit to the code of conduct will bind it to the Unclos that indeed would be a big breakthrough in the South China Sea conflicts.
The Philippines would have been better off if it had negotiated bilaterally such a commitment from China.
Natelagawa did a statesman’s job and the Indonesian effort was in stark contrast to the recalcitrance shown by the Philippine government which had avoided a formal dialog and instead preferred to bring the United States and other Western powers into its territorial rift with China.
That was a big mistake on the part of the Philippine government, knowing that China has rejected many times over any involvement in these regional talks of the United States.
If Vietnam sided with the Philippines on this specific issue, it is because Vietnam, which, apart from its claim on the same Spratlys, also had other territorial claims against China.
Still, it is doubted if Vietnam would want the interference of the United States in its internal affairs, especially in sovereignty issues, something which its neighbor, the Philippines under the stewardship of Noynoy, makes it too clear that the country welcomes with open arms the US involvement even in its internal affairs.
Crafting a code of conduct for the region was the chief goal of the Asean meeting in Cambodia and the hardline posturing of the Philippines almost resulted in the efforts on it to go to waste.
The diplomacy practiced by Indonesia was the right move amid the conflicts and it clearly showed that disagreements can be resolved within the region without always pulling in the United States which clearly has a vested interest in the push for third-party settlement amid its Asia-Pacific policy pivot.
It is a simple matter of trusting your neighbor to which the Philippines seems not to be predisposed.