Another harebrained idea: Taking our dispute with China to the UN

PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.’s belligerent foreign policy towards China over our territorial “and/or” maritime disputes with the Asian superpower in the South China Sea, started by Aquino 3rd, has been a colossal debacle. 

Aquino lost Scarborough Shoal in 2012. Just in the past two months, Marcos lost Ayungin and Sabina Shoals, despite his and his officials’ delusion that the two are still under Philippine control. How many shoals – or even islands – do we have to lose before Marcos realizes he is just being used as a very expendable pawn by the US? President Duterte’s foreign policy which drew us closer to China, didn’t lose anything to the Chinese, but instead attracted $562 million foreign investments.

As reality has set in, especially the realization that the US has been taking us for fools in its promise to come to our aid under its “ironclad” Mutual Defense Treaty, idiotic proposals are being advanced to resolve our conflict with China. 

Sen. Francis Tolentino takes the cake in this regard, proposing that the Philippines immediately purchase “a frigate” to strengthen our naval power. He of course doesn’t realize a warship like a frigate costs at least $1 billion, or one-fourth of the country’s defense budget for 2025.  He of course, doesn’t realize that with the state of our economy, it cannot buy vessels within this century that would put it at par with the China Coast Guard, the largest in the world. CCG has 135 large vessels of over 1,000 tons, and 200 smaller boats. The PCG has only three large vessels and 70 smaller boats. 

Just as mindless, although seemingly reasonable, has been the proposal to take our case to the United Nations, either to the General Assembly or to the Security Council. If one is too lazy to research UN mechanisms and political dynamics, then think of these: the UN has not been able to stop the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, with over 41,000 innocent civilians mostly women and children massacred in Gaza, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea, the Israeli Defense Forces attacks in Lebanon and Yemen. And some nut thinks the UN will intervene in our conflict with China?

The UN would not intervene to resolve a territorial and/or maritime dispute which the entire world really, even the US, views as a complex issue in which both sides have legitimate arguments.

Dull-witted

I cannot fathom why this prestigious paper would even front-page an interview with a long-retired ambassador proposing this dull-witted, go-to-the-UN tack.

The retiree demonstrated his shocking naiveté of the UN, whose General Assembly he claimed is a one-nation, one-vote organization. Technically it is, but that’s not the reality. Rather than a fraternity, the UN has been actually, since its creation, an arena of super-powers and their vassals. That is, we have the Western US-led bloc, and what now is its challenger, BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Each bloc has its own vassals whose loyalty so often changes, depending on the issues and each bloc’s power at the moment. Nations vote there depending on who their overlords are. Not only that, a country agrees to a request by another nation on a quid-pro-quo basis.

Right off the bat, the US and its vassals would of course favor our plea (whatever it is), with the BRICs however opposing our case distancing themselves from the fray.

UNSC

In his interview, the ex-ambassador however himself reveals how ignorant he is of what the UN Security Council (UNSC) is:

“We need a two-thirds vote in the Security Council to win,” he said. “I am certain that we will get more than that,” forecasting that the Philippines could get a 13-2 vote in the UNSC with a negative vote from China and Russia or a 13-1-1 with Russia abstaining.

“The UNSC has 15 members. Its five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. In the council, they have veto power on substantive issues,” he says (Italics mine.)

Doesn’t that retiree understand what “veto” means? Even if 14 SC members vote for us, China’s single vote on an issue will throw that resolution to the wastebasket. And then of course you have Russia. Where did the retiree leave his mind?

The US shamelessly has the most number of vetoes, especially when an UNSC resolution would affect the interests of Israel. Just recently in April 2024, the US  blocked a resolution that would have granted Palestine full membership in the United Nations, thereby ensuring peace in the Middle East. With that track record, do you think China and Russia won’t exercise their veto on the Philippine case?

Journalism

Philippine journalism has become the laughingstock of diplomats for highlighting this-go-to-the-UN proposal.  It’s the Philippine Star which is at the forefront in this class. Yesterday, its banner headline, in the biggest font possible for a regular day, was: “DFA: Phl may take China actions to UN Assembly.” And this is according to who? 

To Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago who was nassigned to defend the DFA’s budget in hearings for the General Appropriations Act in the House of Representatives. Violago comes from a small political family in Nueva Ecija, engaged in rice milling. A congressman it seems now determines foreign policy.

But who am I to argue that it’s useless if not stupid to take our case to the UN? This time I will not present my qualifications to discuss this issue. 

I will instead employ artificial-intelligence through its popular Chat-GPT web interface.  As most – or all – technology scientists (as well as technology moguls as Bill Gates) have pointed out, AI is the most powerful technology invented by man: it collects  unbelievable amounts of information, and analyzes these  – in nanoseconds – to come up with a conclusion, or idea, l,000 or even 100,000 humans can’t for a longer period of work.  If you do not believe this, you’re way behind in your knowledge of what the world faces now. What I’ll be doing below – getting an AI to enlighten an issue – will be as common as using Google in just a few years

ChatGPT itself explains one of its strengths, especially in discussing international disputes: “ ChatGPT relies on verifiable facts, historical data, official documents (such as treaties, international agreements) and statements from both parties to avoid speculation or bias. It presents the viewpoints of all involved parties, including neutral third-party observers (like international organizations or experts), to avoid favoring one side. AI of course is not infallible and can make mistakes which humans do not admit because of sheer pride.

ChatGPT

So, I asked ChatGPT if the Philippines can take its case to the UN. Its answer, unedited, though all italics are mine, for emphasis, as follows:

“The Philippines cannot directly bring its dispute with China over the Spratly Islands to the UN for a final resolution of sovereignty, particularly regarding territorial claims over the islands themselves. This is because the UN and its judicial bodies do not have the authority to settle disputes over territorial sovereignty unless both parties agree to submit to such jurisdiction. However, there are some mechanisms and limitations to consider in the context of the Philippines-China dispute over the Spratlys:

The Philippines can, and has, used Unclos mechanisms to address maritime rights in the South China Sea, as it did in the 2016 arbitration case. However, it is important to distinguish between:

— Maritime rights (such as exclusive economic zones [EEZs], fishing rights, and access to resources) under Unclos.

— Territorial sovereignty over the islands and features themselves. (This is the reason for my use of “and/or” above in referring to our dispute with China.)

In 2013, the Philippines initiated an arbitration case under Annex VII of Unclos to challenge China’s actions in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal ruling in 2016 found that:

China’s nine-dash line had no legal basis under Unclos. Many features in the Spratlys are low-tide elevations or rocks and do not generate large maritime zones.

China violated the Philippines’ rights within its EEZ.

However, the tribunal did not rule on sovereignty over the Spratly Islands because Unclos does not cover territorial disputes over land features. China rejected the ruling and refused to participate in the proceedings

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), a judicial body of the United Nations, can settle disputes between states, including territorial disputes, but this requires both parties to accept the court’s jurisdiction.

Both China and the Philippines would have to agree to submit the case to the ICJ. China, however, has consistently rejected international arbitration or adjudication related to the South China Sea and prefers bilateral negotiations. Without China’s consent, the ICJ cannot take jurisdiction over the case.

Even if the ICJ issued a ruling, enforcement would rely on the compliance of the states involved. Given China’s rejection of the 2016 arbitration ruling, it is likely China would refuse to accept an ICJ ruling if it were unfavorable.

General Assembly

The UN General Assembly and Security Council are political bodies, and they cannot directly resolve territorial disputes. They may be able to pass resolutions encouraging peaceful dialogue or refer the case to the ICJ if both parties agree.

If the dispute is considered a threat to international peace and security, the UN Security Council could intervene diplomatically or call for negotiations. However, China is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, meaning it can block any actions that it views as unfavorable.

The General Assembly could pass non-binding resolutions encouraging dialogue or urging a peaceful resolution, but such resolutions do not have legal force, and China is likely to resist any efforts to escalate the issue in these bodies.

While the UN does not have direct authority to resolve territorial disputes, it could play a role in facilitating dialogue and mediation between the Philippines and China, though this would also depend on China’s willingness to participate. The UN Secretary-General or a designated UN envoy could encourage negotiations, but the final resolution would require bilateral cooperation.

The Philippines cannot unilaterally bring its territorial sovereignty dispute with China over the Spratly Islands to the United Nations for a binding resolution, as territorial disputes fall outside the scope of Unclos and require both parties to agree to arbitration or adjudication under international law. While the Philippines successfully used Unclos arbitration to address maritime rights in the South China Sea, issues of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands would need to be addressed either through bilateral negotiations, an agreement to submit the case to the ICJ, or other diplomatic channels.”

This is AI’s analysis , and don’t claim it is a tool of Beijing.  Next week I ask AI what country, the Philippines or China has the legitimate claim on the Spratlys, including Escoda and Ayungin shoals.

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao     

X: @bobitiglao     

My website:  www.rigobertotiglao.com 

The post Another harebrained idea: Taking our dispute with China to the UN first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.

Another harebrained idea: Taking our dispute with China to the UN
Source: Breaking News PH