In 1995, the Philippines had noticed strange Chinese military structures coming up on Mischief Reef in its Spratly Islands. Soon, a formal notice was lodged by Manila over PLA (Chinese People’s Liberation Army) activities and many Chinese fishermen were subsequently arrested by the Philippines Navy. After validating that the structures in question were indeed of militaristic design, the then Philippine President, Fidel Ramos, had despatched fighter jets and helicopters along with naval ships to assert its sovereignty in the said area.

China’s unconvincing claims that the structures were only ‘shelters’ for Chinese fishermen were rebuffed and the first dissonance of claims and counterclaims between Philippines and China in the restive South China Seas started. But just a year later, during Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s visit, the schizophrenic tenor of China-Philippines relations of “shelving disputes and going in for joint development”, especially pertaining to South China Seas, got formalized. Both sides downplayed the earlier incident of Chinese belligerence, and the corrupt politicians went on to sign various commercial deals and agreements with Beijing. Later, China under President Xi Jingping (since 2012) became more brazen and unapologetic about its overt expansionism and domination in the neighbourhood. The Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2012 followed the patent route of Chinese “fishermen” in the contentious region claimed by both Philippines and China.

Advertisement

The Philippine Navy again got into the act of rounding up the Chinese fishermen, only to be challenged and deterred by Chinese maritime surveillance ships. The uproar in the Philippines led to the usual calls of banning Chinese import/export, protests, fishing bans etc., till a deal mediated by the United States of America agreed on a troops’ withdrawal till a final determination was made. As expected, while the Philippines complied with the agreement terms, the Chinese provocatively continued their militarization moves. A dangerous standoff ultimately led to the use of water cannons on Filipino boats by Chinese Naval ships in 2015. With no recourse left, the Philippines took the argument to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague. As the historical and cartographical facts were clearly in favour of the Philippines, the ICJ dismissed the Chinese arguments and ruled in favour of the Philippines. While it was a moral victory for the Philippines, it was not implementable or enforceable. What shocked the world was not the verdict itself ~ but the sudden and inexplicable U-turn and playdown of the victorious validation by the then Filipino President, Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines for long has been cursed with infamous national leadership that has been a combination of fraudsters, outright dictators, the pathologically corrupt or the dangerously populist.

They have ranged from kleptocrats like Ferdinand Marcos who ruled under martial law (whose wife, Imelda earned notoriety for her 3,000 pairs of shoes!) to the decidedly uncouth Rodrigo Duterte who flipflopped on his stances, most disconcertingly, on China. Duterte had a strangely conciliatory line with the Chinese, and did get financial gratification and inclusion of the Philippines in the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). Despite the unpopularity of China and the Chinese, the economic lure from Beijing was attractive enough to overlook hard lessons and pointers from history.

The traditional ally, the United States, was relegated to the backseat as the Chinese were preferred. But as it happens with all countries allying with China, it became an opportunistic equation designed to ensnare and diminish the other. Today, the Philippines is embroiled in yet another dangerous standoff against China and this time it started with the “military-grade laser” attacks on a deliberately grounded and manned Philippine warship on the Second Thomas Shoal (since 1999). On the rebound Manilla, under current President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos (son of former President Ferdinand Marcos, Senior) has cozied up to Washington DC, again.

The US has committed to “unwavering commitment to freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea” and the finger pointing at the Chinese threat is unmistakable. In recent times, Manila has conducted joint military exercises along with naval elements from the US, Japan, and Australia, all wary of the intimidating Sino presence in the region. The Chinese are retaliating with “routine patrols” and firing of water cannons. However, the situation escalated with the Chinese naval elements conducting “dangerous and blocking” maneuvers. The Chinese especially targeted the resupply missions of its troops in the Scarborough Shoal, with both sides accusing the other of intruding into their sovereign waters, even though the ICJ has upheld the Philippines’ claims. The Chinese have asked the Americans to desist from “stirring up trouble”. The Indian Foreign Minister has leaned in on the matter during his concurrent trip to Manila, with Beijing noting coldly, “Maritime disputes are issues between countries concerned.

Third parties have no right to interfere whatsoever”. But it is not just the Philippines but also Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan who have many counter-claims against the Chinese on maritime issues. The latest flare-up tests the wits and commitments of not just the leadership in Philippines and China, but also of the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), pursuant to which US officials had warned, “would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments.” Importantly, the civilian mood in the Philippines also supports anti-Chinese sentiment and therefore pro-US emotions. These have legitimised and led to the increased buildup of US forces on Philippine soil. In many ways, the situation will now test the efficacy of American efforts to checkmate and mitigate threats to places like Taiwan (the Philippines’ northern main island, Luzon, lies just 225 miles south of Taiwan).

The outcome augurs significantly for other Sino-wary ‘blocs’ like QUAD (Quadrilateral Agreement between India, Japan, USA and Australia), as also AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and USA). Given the election season and the stakes to look resolute and decisive, President Joe Biden cannot afford to look weak as the ghost of China looms large on the American consciousness. An image-conscious Xi Jingping has his own regime-insecurities and would not like to be seen to be backing down. Therefore, the limits of provocation and invocation will be tested from all sides ~ though, none of the aggressive sailing, deliberate collisions or water cannons have been used against the US naval elements, as that will draw an immediate reaction. In the summer of 2020, when Chinese expansionism was witnessed along the IndoChinese Line of Actual Control (LAC), India had stood up to the challenge singularly. History is witness that sovereign or ‘bloc’ commitments are easier to give than uphold. Also, the Chinese are more adept at sabre-rattling than walking-the-talk of Xi’s belligerence, at least openly. They prefer a more surreptitious ‘salami tactic’ which is easier on land, than on sea.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)