Gov’t rules out backchanneling talks in sea dispute with China | Global News

Gov’t rules out backchanneling talks in sea dispute with China

Charles-Jose

Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman and Assistant Secretary Charles Jose. AFP FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–The government ruled out backchanneling talks with China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) territorial dispute, and would instead bank on leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to “speak with one voice” on the issue when the group meets for a summit in Malaysia next week.

The Philippine statement on the dispute has more to do with “Asean centrality,” Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) spokesperson and Assistant Secretary Charles Jose said, explaining that “Asean should be able to speak with one voice.”

Article continues after this advertisement

At the same time, the DFA on Tuesday backed the call of lawmakers for Malacañang to convene the National Security Council (NSC), given China’s continued aggression in disputed waters.

FEATURED STORIES

Jose said “convening the NSC would support the position of a whole government approach,” since the dispute was a “complex and pressing issue with far-reaching implications on the country’s economy.”

At a news briefing, Jose said the DFA would pursue appropriate action once it gets hold of the official report on the latest incident of Chinese harassment of Filipino fishermen. On April 9, a Chinese vessel fired water cannons at a group of Filipino fishermen at Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal) in Zambales.

Article continues after this advertisement

Two tracks

Article continues after this advertisement

Asked if the government was open to hold backchanneling talks with China over the issue, Jose said the government was engaged in two tracks—diplomatic and legal—in dealing with the dispute.

Article continues after this advertisement

The “diplomatic track” meant working closely with Asean for the full implementation of the Asean-China 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea or DOC, and the completion of a Code of Conduct.

By “legal,” Jose said this meant Manila’s arbitration case against Beijing before the United Nations tribunal.

Article continues after this advertisement

It was because of this arbitration case that the country can’t hold backchanneling talks with China, the DFA official said.

“We don’t want to jeopardize our arbitration case by holding bilateral talks,” Jose explained.

International attention

But the arbitration case will not stop the Philippines from going to the Asean, as China’s massive reclamation activities in the disputed waters violated the 2002 Asean-China DOC, he said, adding that the South China Sea would be a “priority agenda” for the Philippines in next week’s Asean summit.

Jose said the DFA was able to “generate international attention” in the one year that it raised the alarm on China’s reclamation activities and called the attention of the international community on this development.

Group of 7

Manila was also able to get statements of concern from the Group of 7 industrialized countries, as well as US President Barack Obama, the official added.

At the last Asean foreign ministers’ meeting, a statement on China’s reclamation work was also included, Jose said.

“China’s reclamation activities (are) a very serious matter, a matter of great concern for countries, other claimant countries, the region and the international community … because (they) undermine peace and stability. (They) raise tension and cause massive and irreparable damage, a violation of the 2002 Asean-China DOC,” Jose said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“It’s very clear it is intended to change the status quo and this could adversely affect our arbitration case,” he added.

TAGS: China sea row, Government, Philippines, sea dispute

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.