THE experts long involved in the fight against China's territorial grabs have long defined the areas in the South China Sea that belong to us - and what does not. The defined limits of our territorial claims have been firmed up for several reasons. One is to limit our claims to what is legitimately defined as Philippine territory under our laws. Second is to assume the moral and legal perch of being the anti-China as the country has laid claim over most areas via a legal hokum called the nine-dash line. Third, the defined limitations of our claim would also prevent conflicts with other countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), neighbors of good standing that could be put off or provoked by any act of territorial overstretch from our end in the South China Sea. What would neighbors feel if we covet what belongs to them?

We can't be seen as greedy, bullying actors like China or else we forfeit both the moral and the legal ground to pursue our claims. Our win at the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the sum of many things: the legitimacy of our territorial claims, the outlandishness/bankruptcy of China's nine-dash line and the international recognition of the temperance and moderation of our claims or, let us put it candidly, the timidity of our territorial ambitions. That timidity is the reason for the near-universal support for our South China Sea claims.

Premium + Digital Edition

Ad-free access


P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
  • Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
  • Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)

TRY FREE FOR 14 DAYS
See details
See details