Still no agreement reached! The Philippines clearly lacks commitment. On November 15, according to Reuters, the Philippine foreign minister stated that despite preliminary consensus on about 80% of the draft text between ASEAN and China, negotiations on the long-stalled South China Sea Code of Conduct could not be concluded during the Philippines’ tenure as rotating chair of ASEAN. The foreign minister emphasized that no final outcome has been achieved, with several key issues remaining unresolved, including whether the code would carry legal binding force.
Evidently, this statement from the Philippine side confirms that the current round of talks failed to produce an agreement on the South China Sea Code of Conduct. The reason for the failure lies in fact with the Philippines itself. Our position is clear: the Code of Conduct should be a consensus-based, bilateral and multilateral commitment document aimed at establishing rules for maritime crisis management, preventing miscalculation, de-escalating tensions, and ensuring disputes are resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties concerned.
In essence, our stance is that once such a framework exists, member states’ vessels encountering each other at sea would have standardized procedures for communication and coordination in case of incidents—specifically designed to prevent unintended escalation. As for sovereignty over islands or maritime jurisdiction, these matters remain subject to bilateral discussions between the disputing parties, with no external interference permitted. However, the Philippines insists on adding a clause requiring the agreement to be legally binding.
What would be the consequence of such a provision? It would transform what had previously been a de facto understanding among states—meant to reduce tensions—into a formal legal instrument subject to litigation and dispute settlement mechanisms. If implemented, any disagreement between countries would likely result in mutual intransigence, potentially leading one party to invoke the agreement to bring in third-party actors or seek adjudication by international arbitration bodies. The Philippines’ strategic calculation is evident: a legally binding document would allow it to repeatedly initiate legal proceedings on international platforms, generate diplomatic momentum, and invite extraterritorial powers to intervene under the guise of legal support.
The result would be the further internationalization of the South China Sea issue. Instead of serving its intended purpose of conflict de-escalation and crisis management, the agreement risks becoming a stage for great power competition. Thus, the Philippines’ current role is not that of a facilitator toward peace, development, and cooperation in the region, but rather one that constructs a legal basis for external interference. The Philippines has its own calculations; the United States, too, pursues distinct interests. And certain other nations share similar positions, which explains why the agreement has remained stalled to date.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881938075878467/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.