Talking straight about South China Sea

I didn’t know there was such a thing as the Shangri-la Dialogue about South China Sea until recently. I was not sure whether it was named after the hotel in Singapore or the mythical Shangri-la in the dense forests between China and Myanmar. It was a letter that led me to it asking if I could write a short article about the South China Sea problem. The letter-writer said he was told I was an “expert” on the issue. He gave me some guidelines and the words are his:

“…The article should be about the South China Sea issue as a hot topic in the upcoming Shangri-la conference, rule-based approach, recent arbitration case, Vietnam and Philippines pro-activeness on the issues which would help ensure regional and international peace and security; call for Asean cooperation, dialogue and peaceful settlement of dispute on basis of UNCLOS 1982…would help push for maritime security…”

 A fee was offered for the article which I turned down immediately not only because it was inappropriate, but also because there is no way I could write an article based on his guidelines. He did say he was new to it and wanted to know if I could help him know more about it. Well, I had to excuse myself because I am not an expert and I find the guidelines misleading. I asked him instead to read the articles I have written about it from the Opinion Archives of the Philippine STAR.

*      *      *

First, what the Shangri-la Dialogue is all about. News dispatches describe it as an annual security conference of defense ministers of countries around the region.  This year, it adds, has made it increasingly important because of the “heightened tensions in the region over maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas, North Korea’s nuclear ambition, as well as growing friction between neighbors like China and Japan.”

 So it was definitely not about the mythical Shangri-la, a place of incomparable beauty, but the Shangri-la hotel in Singapore and a dialogue organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Neither does it seem to me to be encouraging peaceful settlements with the “US newest warship — the USS Freedom tied up alongside at the Changi Naval Base. “ 

*      *      *

The keynote speaker was Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and he said plainly that there must be greater strategic trust in the Asia-Pacific. He argued that the recent tensions and territorial disputes would undermine the region’s prosperity.

“We all understand that if this region falls into instability, and especially armed conflicts in general, there will be neither winner nor loser,’’ Mr Dung said, “Rather, all will lose.’’ But somewhere along the line of reporting these words were interpreted as “China’s assertiveness in the region which is a concern for many countries.” This, it is said, is what Mr. Dung alluded to indirectly.  I was not at the conference so I don’t know if there were other information I was not privy to.

But it is clear to me by the reports that China’s growing strength was at the center of the conference and how the US as a superpower in the region should deal with the competition. As in any contest for supremacy, the competing parties must get as many allies to its side. That is the unstated reason for the conference. Any article I write on the South China Sea would have to take into account that aspect of the problem cleverly hidden as a peace concern. It is about US return to Asia and the reactivated Shangri-la dialogue is a means through which it will coax affected parties to get involved.

Chinese diplomats are as opaque as the Americans when supremacy in the region is discussed. They talk of relations with the US as ‘strategic cooperation” which is being neither here nor there.  The important thing as far as the Philippines is concerned is that it should not get caught in between when the giants collide.

*      *      *

Ironically, the Shangri-la dialogue is taking place in Singapore that has categorically stated it is neutral in the South China (West Philippine) Sea disputes. We forget that it was only last year when the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs was peeved about Philippine media reports that said it was supporting the Philippine position.

It said then that “there has been no change to Singapore’s position.” That is true today even if the Shangri-la dialogue is being held there or that the USS Freedom is docked in Changi Naval Base.

In a statement it said that Singapore does not take sides on the merits or otherwise of the various specific disputes in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea).

 â€œPrime Minister Lee called on all claimants to exercise restraint and for disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law.” 

There were some red faces when that statement was translated into Singapore support for the Philippine position said to have been reached after a meeting between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Benigno Aquino during the 20th APEC Economic Leaders’ meeting in Russia.

The report said that Secretary Albert del Rosario even thanked Lee for the very strong support that Singapore has given the Philippines in terms of its position in the West Philippine Sea.”

The reports were derided by the Singaporean MFA spokesman “You all know how free the Filipino media is; they can even be very free with the facts.”

*      *      *

From the Veronica Pedrosa daily I read an article from the Guardian that should concern social media users in the Philippines.

Although it is about social media in the UK, it would affect us here in the Philippines as well. The story is about Internet companies warning over a ‘snooper’s charter.’ “The five biggest internet companies in the world, including Google and Facebook, have privately delivered a thinly veiled warning to British home secretary Therese May, that they will not voluntarily co-operate with the “snooper’s charter.”

The news came from a leaked letter to the home secretary signed by Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo!, the web’s “big five” say that May’s rewritten proposals to track everybody’s email, internet and social media use remain “expensive to implement and highly contentious.”