{"id":212156,"date":"2019-04-30T22:52:19","date_gmt":"2019-05-01T02:52:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=212156"},"modified":"2019-04-30T22:52:19","modified_gmt":"2019-05-01T02:52:19","slug":"bilateral-talks-most-effective-way-to-resolve-wps-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/04\/30\/bilateral-talks-most-effective-way-to-resolve-wps-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Bilateral talks \u2018most effective\u2019 way to resolve WPS dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
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<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— Holding bilateral negotiations between the Philippines and China is currently the \u201cmost effective\u201d way to resolve the dispute over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), Malaca\u00f1ang said on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo made the statement as he justified President Rodrigo Duterte\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cSa ngayon<\/em>\u00a0bilateral\u00a0muna. Kasi<\/em>\u00a0I remember\u00a0si Presidente noong<\/em>\u00a0a year ago,\u00a0parang hindi siya masyadong<\/em>\u00a0hot\u00a0sa<\/em>\u00a0multilateral (For now, we stick with bilateral negotiations. Because I remember, the President a year ago, doesn\u2019t seem to favor multilateral),\u201d Panelo said in a Palace briefing.<\/p>\n

\u201cKasi nga eh ang may problema iyong dalawang bansa, di mag-<\/em>bilateral\u00a0muna kayo<\/em>\u00a0(Because it\u2019s the problem of two countries, so why don\u2019t we begin with bilateral first),\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, yes. You don\u2019t 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,\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe advantage there is whatever difference you have, you can settle it by way of that mechanism,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

He, however, said multilateral talks could still be an option in the future.<\/p>\n

\u201cSiguro<\/em>\u00a0(Parhaps) if that fails\u00a0baka maging\u00a0<\/em>option\u00a0iyon<\/em>\u00a0(it can be an options), among the claimants,\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe 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,\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

Panelo, meanwhile, expressed hope that China would remain open-minded to resolve the sea row and at the same time, respond to the Philippines\u2019 diplomatic protest against the presence of Chinese vessels near Pag-asa Island and other Philippine-claimed territories.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is important to me is open\u00a0sila na i-<\/em>resolve\u00a0ang<\/em>\u00a0dispute\u00a0doon sa<\/em>\u00a0negotiation table (they are open to resolve the dispute in the negotiation table),\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

\u201cConsidering 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\u2019m confident that there will be response and there will be a basis for a dialogue or talk or a negotiation between the two countries,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In November 2018, Panelo noted that \u201ccollective action\u201d coming from United Nations (UN) member-countries may help pressure China into respecting the 2016 arbitral ruling that favors the Philippines and invalidates China\u2019s claims on the disputed sea.<\/p>\n

\u201cPerhaps 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,\u201d Panelo added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— Holding bilateral negotiations between the Philippines and China is currently the \u201cmost effective\u201d way to resolve the dispute over …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":211422,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-azer-parrocha","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212156","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212156"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212156\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":212157,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212156\/revisions\/212157"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/211422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}