David vs. Goliath: Philippines Wields Legal and Moral Power Against China’s Sea Aggression

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

As China’s shadow looms ever larger over the West Philippine Sea, the Philippines faces an existential challenge. The maritime confrontations are not just a regional flashpoint but a test of international order and justice. Ray Powell, a maritime security expert and director at Stanford University’s SeaLight Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation, has proposed a strategy that hinges on the Philippines leveraging its “legal and moral authority.” But is this enough to counter China’s relentless aggression?

Powell’s analysis suggests an asymmetric approach, leveraging international law and moral high ground rather than trying to match China’s military might. The logic is sound: the Philippines, despite its efforts to bolster its naval capabilities, cannot realistically rival China’s formidable maritime presence. Indeed, the disparity in military strength is glaring. For instance, while China has over 300 ships in its navy, the Philippines has fewer than 100, many of which are outdated.

Legal and Moral Authority: The Asymmetrical Advantage

Powell underscores the Philippines’ strengths: its legal victory in the 2016 arbitral ruling and its moral position as the aggrieved party. This ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration invalidated China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, a decision Beijing has ignored but which the international community widely recognizes. This legal backing provides the Philippines with a robust foundation to further its claims and seek international support.

Powell also advocates for filing new legal cases against China, particularly over environmental destruction in the disputed waters. This approach not only underscores the Philippines’ commitment to international law but also highlights China’s disregard for environmental stewardship, an issue of global concern. Yet, gathering evidence to support these claims is a significant hurdle, given China’s control and surveillance in these regions.

The ASEAN Conundrum

However, the geopolitical landscape complicates matters. Chester Cabalza, another security analyst, points out that ASEAN is unlikely to support the Philippines robustly. Historically, ASEAN has maintained a policy of neutrality and consensus, often to the detriment of its collective bargaining power. The economic dependencies of key ASEAN members like Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia on China further dilute the bloc’s ability to present a united front.

Cabalza’s suggestion for the Philippines to consider exiting ASEAN is radical and fraught with risks. Leaving ASEAN could isolate the Philippines and diminish its influence in regional diplomacy. However, it also underscores the frustration with ASEAN’s inability to confront Chinese aggression decisively.

Historical Context and Current Realities

Historically, the Philippines has found itself at odds with its more powerful neighbor. The standoff at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 is a case in point, where China effectively took control despite a supposed mutual withdrawal agreement brokered by the United States. This incident, and others like it, reveal the limits of diplomatic engagement when faced with an adversary willing to flout international norms.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Powell’s Proposal

Advantages:

1. International Support: By emphasizing legal and moral arguments, the Philippines can garner broader international support, as seen with the 2016 ruling.

2. Non-Military Approach: This strategy avoids a direct military confrontation, which the Philippines cannot win and which could lead to significant loss of life and economic disruption.

3. Highlighting Environmental Destruction: Focusing on environmental issues resonates globally, potentially drawing in support from environmental organizations and nations concerned about ecological preservation.

Disadvantages:

1. Evidence Gathering: Collecting verifiable evidence in contested waters is challenging and resource-intensive.

2. Limited Immediate Impact: Legal proceedings are lengthy, and even favorable rulings may not change China’s behavior in the short term.

3. ASEAN’s Neutrality: Relying on ASEAN support is problematic given its historical stance of neutrality and economic ties with China.

Recommendations

1. Strengthen International Alliances: The Philippines should deepen its alliances, particularly with the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union. These alliances can provide military, economic, and diplomatic support.

2. Enhance Maritime Capabilities: While legal strategies are pursued, the Philippines must continue to modernize its navy and coast guard to assert its presence and protect its interests.

3. Utilize Multilateral Platforms: Beyond ASEAN, the Philippines should engage with broader international platforms such as the United Nations, G7, and G20 to raise awareness and seek support.

4. Public Diplomacy Campaign: A global public diplomacy campaign can highlight China’s environmental destruction and legal violations, drawing global public opinion to support the Philippines.

5. Economic Diversification: Reducing economic dependency on China through diversified trade and investment can also strengthen the Philippines’ position.

In these turbulent times, the Philippines stands at a crossroads. Its response to China’s aggression in the West Philippine Sea will not only define its own future but also set a precedent for international law and order. The path forward is fraught with challenges, but it also holds the promise of a just and sustainable resolution. The world is watching, and the stakes could not be higher.