Beijing Expresses Regret That Pressure Setting Was Set to ‘Assertive’ Rather Than ‘Refreshing’; Promises Review of Nozzle Calibration
WEST PHILIPPINE SEA – China’s foreign ministry issued a clarification Wednesday regarding the deployment of high-pressure water cannons against Philippine Coast Guard vessels in the West Philippine Sea, explaining that the equipment in question was ‘not a weapon system but a maritime hygiene facility’ and that any perception of hostility arose from ‘a pressure calibration misunderstanding that both sides should work to resolve through dialogue.’ The Philippine Coast Guard, several of whose personnel required medical attention following the incident, indicated it had noted the clarification.
The confrontation, which occurred near the contested Spratly Islands during a Philippine resupply mission, follows a pattern that has become grimly familiar in the West Philippine Sea: a Philippine vessel attempts a resupply or patrol mission, Chinese coast guard or maritime militia vessels intercept, water cannons or other crowd control measures are deployed, both governments exchange statements, both governments call for dialogue, and the resupply mission either succeeds partially, fails, or succeeds under conditions that neither side can describe publicly without it looking like a victory for the other side. This pattern has been running continuously since approximately 2012 and shows no sign of resolution in the near term.
The Diplomatic Response
The Philippines lodged a formal diplomatic protest through its ambassador in Beijing, which is the recognized international mechanism for expressing objection to the actions of a foreign power and which China typically receives, acknowledges, and files in a way that produces no change in the actions being protested. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs described the water cannon use as ‘illegal under international law’ and cited the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, which found in the Philippines’ favour on most aspects of the South China Sea dispute and which China describes as ‘null and void,’ a description that has not altered the ruling’s legal standing but has substantially altered its practical effect.
The United States, which maintains a Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, expressed support for the Philippines’ position and reiterated that the treaty covers Philippine armed forces and coast guard vessels in the South China Sea, a statement that China describes as ‘interference in regional affairs’ and that the Philippines describes as ‘the arrangement we have with our treaty partner.’ This three-way dynamic – Manila maintaining territorial position, Beijing disputing it, and Washington expressing solidarity without directly intervening – has produced what the Philippine Star describes as ‘a balancing act that keeps tilting toward one side depending on the week,’ which is a characterization that the week’s events would seem to support.
The Economics of the Standoff
The waters in dispute are not strategically valuable merely for sovereignty reasons. The Spratly Islands region contains significant hydrocarbon reserves that both countries have interest in developing, fisheries that Filipino fishing communities have depended on for generations and that Chinese fishing fleets have increasingly encroached on, and a strategic maritime corridor whose control carries implications for power projection across the entire Indo-Pacific. The Philippines’ Manila Bulletin has reported that Filipino fishermen operating in areas near contested features face harassment at a rate that has significantly reduced their fishing activity in traditional grounds, with economic consequences for coastal communities that are difficult to quantify and easy to ignore from a conference room in either Manila or Beijing.
The diplomatic note cycle – confrontation, protest, statement, dialogue call, repeat – has generated more paper than progress, and more press releases than peace. The arbitration ruling remains in force and continues to be ignored. The water cannons remain calibrated, regardless of what the foreign ministry says about their classification. And the resupply missions continue, because the Philippine personnel stationed on the grounded ship BRP Sierra Madre need food and supplies, and because stopping the missions would concede the territory in ways that diplomatic language cannot walk back. It is, in other words, a situation that resolves itself not through statements but through sustained presence, which both sides understand and which neither side can publicly admit is the actual mechanism at work.
The legal framework governing the West Philippine Sea dispute is clear in text and contested in practice. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both the Philippines and China are signatories, establishes exclusive economic zone rights that extend 200 nautical miles from a country’s baselines. The Philippines’ EEZ includes the waters where the confrontation occurred. China’s ‘nine-dash line’ claim, which overlaps extensively with Philippine, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Bruneian, and Indonesian EEZs, was found by the 2016 arbitration tribunal to have ‘no legal basis’ under UNCLOS. China declined to participate in the arbitration and has declined to recognize its outcome. This creates a situation in which the legal position is settled and the factual situation on the water is unsettled, which is the gap that water cannons, maritime militia vessels, and diplomatic protest notes all occupy simultaneously. The Philippines continues to assert its rights through legal channels, physical presence, and alliance relationships. China continues to assert its claims through physical presence, coast guard operations, and diplomatic statements about sovereignty that it knows are not accepted internationally and deploys regardless. In the short term, the water cannons are the most honest expression of the actual state of the relationship. In the long term, the arbitration ruling may prove more durable than the pressure setting on the nozzle. In the medium term, Filipino fishermen are deciding whether to risk the journey, which is the human dimension of a geopolitical standoff that conference rooms and press releases do not adequately capture.
For more satirical dispatches visit Cracked. SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/