Soho wiser than Carpio
(Herman Tiu Laurel / DieHard III / The Daily Tribune / 07-06-2015 MON)
On the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea (SCS/WPS) dispute, seasoned public affairs TV news anchor Jessica Soho displayed more intelligence and wisdom with her plain common sense than the much vaunted Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
That Soho interview was the culmination of Carpio's organized lecture series cum "experts' discussion" that kicked off last June at the plush Discovery Suites (sponsored no less by a Japanese neo-nationalist institute) and continued at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, as well as in the media circuit.
The July 2, 2015 episode of State of the Nation with Jessica Soho was where Carpio belabored the fact that the Philippines' International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLoS) case will "…take time…even an inter-generational struggle… (where even) if we will win … this generation will get the ruling… the next will convince the world… and maybe the next… after that will convince China…"
Since one generation is 25 years, Carpio is effectively talking of 75 years before any potential benefits. To this Soho reacted with plain common sense: "Will there be anything left in the SCS/WPS after that time?"
After stumping Carpio with that question, Soho then led him to reflect on the question of the growing majority of Filipinos as to why the Philippines is not engaging China in bilateral talks over the SCS/WPS dispute between the two countries. Soho asked Carpio why the Philippines has not taken the track of bilateral dialog at the same time (as many suggest, a two-track policy that includes dialog--especially after China spoke through its envoy, Ambassador Zhao Jianhua, last June 12 that it is open to dialog "without any precondition").
Carpio took pains to persuade his listeners that bilateral dialog is not a viable option as it would "jeopardize" the ITLoS case if China invokes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLoS) requirement that disputants first submit to choice "peaceful means" of resolution, among which are dialog and negotiations, to resolve issues; and only upon the inability to come to terms through such initial "peaceful means" can the matter be brought to the court.
China contends that no such peaceful dialog has happened and Carpio's caveat may indicate that such can be claimed.
To buttress his arguments for the Philippines to desist from any effort to engage China in dialog and bilateral negotiations, Carpio was not beyond comparing bananas to lychees to make his case.
Citing the Nicaragua vs United States case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)--not ITLoS--where the US was rapped for laying naval mines in Nicaragua's harbors against the Sandinista government (which, again, is not a territorial dispute) and where the ICJ decided in favor of Nicaragua with a $30-million award in damages (which the US repeatedly ignored), Carpio claimed that the US complied after mounting international pressure grew out of Nicaragua's repeated attempts at securing a resolution before the UN General Assembly.
The truth is the US did not even want to appear at the slightest bit to be complying with that ICJ ruling as it first required the repeal of a Nicaraguan law requiring compensation before even extending a politically motivated "aid" package of roughly over $500 million (not $1 billion as claimed by Carpio) to the US-backed Violeta Chamorro administration that succeeded the Sandanistas.
Carpio, as a member of the high court, demeans the stature of his position when he stoops that low as to attempt to deceive the public. His apparent need to dissuade the Filipino people from engaging in "bilateral talks" with China seems so overriding that he had no qualms doing this.
Many international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, by their very nature, are not beyond the reach of geopolitical influences. The world has seen this, from Slobodan Milosevic's trial to the abuse of the International Criminal Court against African political leaders not allied to Western powers.
Many countries, including China in this case, do not countenance involvement of such multilateral institutions controlled by the West. In conflicts such as those in Libya, Côte d'Ivoire, or the Rwandan genocide, these institutions were part of the problem and not the solution. Conversely, the Tribunal may also be used to turn against the Philippines' interest.
Carpio and his like-minded anti-dialog clique are really getting desperate as more and more Filipinos are wishing for dialog and bilateral talks with China over the SCS/WPS impasse. As we wrote recently, "In the Laylo Survey from May 8 to 18 among 1,500 respondents, 53 percent of Filipinos supported a diplomatic solution (i.e. dialog) versus 47 percent who 'believe it is better'… to have filed a case… (which was followed by a) June SWS poll (that) reported 46 percent of Filipinos disapprove of the government's actions (filing the case at the ITLoS), which is a sea change from the SWS' 2013 survey where only 27 percent disapproved of the government's moves."
Note the advice from a young but internationally recognized Filipino writer, Ateneo professor Richard Javad Heydarian, in his Huffington Post article last June 30: "'Time for the Philippines to Adjust its South China Sea Approach' … Manila should pursue dialog with Beijing while it still can… the Philippines can still learn some lessons from its neighbors on how to better manage the ongoing disputes and best deal with the Chinese juggernaut. Diplomacy isn't only about mobilizing… against your foes. It is also about… managing differences with even the bitterest foes."
Got that, Carpio?
(Listen to Sulô ng Pilipino, 1098 AM, dwAD, Tuesday to Friday, 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.; watch GNN Talk News TV with HTL on Destiny Cable Channel 8, SkyCable Channel 213, and www.gnntv-asia.com, Saturday, 8 p.m. and replay Sunday, 8 a.m.; search Talk News TV and date of showing on YouTube; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com; and text reactions to 0917-8658664)
