Bilateral talks ‘most effective’ way to resolve WPS dispute

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte receives a warm welcome from People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping prior to the start of the bilateral meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on April 25, 2019. KING RODRIGUEZ/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO

MANILA — Holding bilateral negotiations between the Philippines and China is currently the “most effective” way to resolve the dispute over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), Malacañang said on Tuesday.

Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo made the statement as he justified President Rodrigo Duterte’s preference for bilateral negotiations over multilateral talks with other parties since the sea row is a problem the two countries should settle on their own.

“Sa ngayon bilateral muna. Kasi I remember si Presidente noong a year ago, parang hindi siya masyadong hot sa multilateral (For now, we stick with bilateral negotiations. Because I remember, the President a year ago, doesn’t seem to favor multilateral),” Panelo said in a Palace briefing.

“Kasi nga eh ang may problema iyong dalawang bansa, di mag-bilateral muna kayo (Because it’s the problem of two countries, so why don’t we begin with bilateral first),” he added.

Duterte has stood pat on his stand, despite remarks made by University of the Philippines (UP) Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea Director Jay Batongbacal that it is time to go multilateral since the bilateral approach is ineffective.

Panelo said the maritime law expert is entitled to his own opinion but insisted that bilateral talks was the best option to avoid unnecessary conflict from arising.

“Of course, yes. You don’t resolve the conflict by going to war or armed hostilities; it will not solve anything. In fact, all the conflicts in the world when not resolved by means of negotiations end up in armed hostilities,” Panelo said.

“The advantage there is whatever difference you have, you can settle it by way of that mechanism,” he added.

He, however, said multilateral talks could still be an option in the future.

“Siguro (Parhaps) if that fails baka maging option iyon (it can be an options), among the claimants,” Panelo said.

Asked what would convince the President to take the sea row to a multilateral level, Panelo refrained from commenting saying he would rather not preempt the chief executive.

“We will have to wait for the President. The President is the one who charters the foreign policy. That is his right and discretion. We cannot be preempting the President on this,” Panelo said.

Panelo, meanwhile, expressed hope that China would remain open-minded to resolve the sea row and at the same time, respond to the Philippines’ diplomatic protest against the presence of Chinese vessels near Pag-asa Island and other Philippine-claimed territories.

“What is important to me is open sila na i-resolve ang dispute doon sa negotiation table (they are open to resolve the dispute in the negotiation table),” Panelo said.

“Considering that there has been a bilateral meeting between the two heads of the state, and they agreed that they can solve whatever irritants or challenges that confront both sides, then I’m confident that there will be response and there will be a basis for a dialogue or talk or a negotiation between the two countries,” he added.

Panelo earlier said “irritants” refer to the presence of the Chinese vessels surrounding Pag-asa Island and the alleged harassment of Filipino fishermen, among others.

In November 2018, Panelo noted that “collective action” coming from United Nations (UN) member-countries may help pressure China into respecting the 2016 arbitral ruling that favors the Philippines and invalidates China’s claims on the disputed sea.

“Perhaps if all the countries of the world will unite and pressure China, who knows? There must be a collective action by the countries of the world and either persuade or pressure China into respecting an arbitral decision,” Panelo added.