Verbal Agreement vs. Written Agreement
Former President Duterte’s revelation of a verbal agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping regarding the West Philippine Sea has sparked a wave of discussions and debates. Critics argue that a verbal agreement lacks the necessary transparency and accountability that a written agreement would provide. They argue that without a written agreement, there is no way to hold either party accountable if one were to violate the terms of the agreement.
Supporters of Duterte’s approach, on the other hand, argue that a verbal agreement can be just as binding as a written one, especially when it comes to diplomatic relations. They point out that many international agreements and treaties have been made verbally in the past, and they have been successfully upheld. They argue that the handshake between Duterte and Xi symbolizes their commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the region.
Clarity and Effectiveness of the Verbal Agreement
However, the lack of familiarity with the Ayungin Shoal, a disputed area in the West Philippine Sea, raises concerns about the clarity and effectiveness of the verbal agreement. Critics argue that without a comprehensive understanding of the disputed areas, it is difficult to ensure that the agreement will effectively prevent further escalation of the territorial dispute.
Long-Term Sustainability of the Verbal Agreement
Furthermore, the absence of a written agreement raises questions about the long-term sustainability of the verbal agreement. While Duterte’s former spokesman referred to it as a “gentleman’s agreement,” critics argue that without a written document, there is no guarantee that future administrations or leaders will honor the agreement. They argue that a written agreement would provide a legal framework for the agreement, ensuring its longevity regardless of changes in leadership.
Duterte’s Approach to the South China Sea Issue
Amidst the ongoing debates, it is clear that the verbal agreement between Duterte and Xi has both advantages and disadvantages. While it symbolizes a commitment to peace and stability, it lacks the transparency and accountability that a written agreement would provide. The effectiveness of the agreement in preventing further escalation of the territorial dispute remains to be seen, and the absence of a written document raises concerns about its long-term sustainability. As the West Philippine Sea continues to be a contentious issue, it is crucial for the Philippines to carefully consider its approach to ensure its national interests are protected.
Cease of Construction Materials Delivery to the Sierra Madre
Duterte’s decision to cease the delivery of construction materials to repair the Sierra Madre, a derelict Philippine navy warship serving as a military outpost in the Ayungin Shoal, was met with mixed reactions. Some praised Duterte for prioritizing peace and avoiding a potential conflict with China, while others criticized him for seemingly giving in to China’s demands.
The Philippines’ Position on Territory Concession and War with China
Despite the agreement with Xi, Duterte made it clear that the Philippines had not conceded any of its territories to China. He assured the public that any exchanges of control over the South China Sea were purely territorial in nature and did not involve China encroaching on the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. Duterte emphasized that the authority to concede territories rested solely with the Filipino people, and no individual or entity, including the Supreme Court, the presidency, or Congress, had the power to make such decisions.
However, Duterte also acknowledged the reality that the Philippines could not afford a war with China at this time. He believed that escalating tensions with China would only bring harm to the country and its people. Duterte recounted a conversation he had with Xi during his first state visit to Beijing, where he raised the Philippines’ claim to a part of the South China Sea. Xi responded by cautioning Duterte that pursuing such a claim would only lead to trouble and potentially even war with China.
Duterte’s Approach to Maintain Peace and Stability
While Duterte’s decision to cease construction materials delivery to the Sierra Madre may have been seen as a compromise by some, it was ultimately a strategic move to maintain peace and stability in the region. The Sierra Madre, although in need of repairs, served as a symbol of Philippine sovereignty in the disputed waters. By preserving the status quo and avoiding any actions that could escalate tensions, Duterte hoped to find a diplomatic solution to the South China Sea issue.
Criticisms of Duterte’s Approach
However, critics argued that Duterte’s approach was too passive and that the Philippines should take a stronger stance against China’s assertiveness in the region. They believed that by ceasing construction materials delivery, Duterte was effectively abandoning the Philippines’ claim to the Ayungin Shoal and allowing China to further solidify its control over the disputed waters.
President Marcos Jr.’s Pursuit of the Truth
Despite the criticisms, Duterte remained steadfast in his belief that peaceful negotiations and dialogue were the best way to resolve the South China Sea issue. He continued to engage in diplomatic talks with China, as well as with other neighboring countries involved in the dispute, in the hopes of finding a mutually beneficial solution that would safeguard the Philippines’ territorial integrity while maintaining regional stability.
President Marcos Jr.’s Investigation
Despite the criticism from former officials and political commentators, President Marcos Jr. remained relentless in his pursuit of the truth behind the alleged agreement between Duterte and China. He understood the gravity of the situation and believed that it was his duty to uncover any potential threats to the country’s sovereignty.
In his quest for answers, Marcos reached out to several former officials who had served under Duterte’s administration. These individuals, who were privy to the inner workings of the government, held valuable information that could shed light on the alleged agreement. Marcos hoped that their testimonies would provide him with the clarity he sought.
Key Figures in Marcos’ Investigation
One of the key figures he contacted was former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario. Del Rosario, known for his staunch advocacy of the Philippines’ territorial rights, had been vocal about the need for transparency in the dealings with China. Marcos believed that del Rosario’s insights would be instrumental in understanding the true nature of the agreement.
Additionally, Marcos sought the counsel of former National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. Esperon, a seasoned military strategist, had extensive knowledge of the country’s defense capabilities and the implications of any agreements made with foreign powers. Marcos valued his expertise and hoped that Esperon could shed light on the potential risks and benefits of the alleged agreement.
Challenges in Uncovering the Truth
As Marcos gathered information from these former officials, he became increasingly frustrated by the lack of clarity surrounding the agreement. He discovered that even those who had been directly involved in the negotiations were hesitant to provide concrete details. This only fueled his determination to uncover the truth.
Public Debate and Complexities
Meanwhile, the public debate surrounding Marcos’ reaction intensified. Supporters of the former president applauded his efforts to hold the current administration accountable, while critics accused him of using the China issue as a political tool. The divide in public opinion further highlighted the complexity of the situation.
Importance of Scrutinizing Potential Agreements
Amidst the controversy, it is important to recognize that the details of the alleged agreement between Duterte and Xi Jinping remained shrouded in uncertainty. The lack of concrete evidence made it challenging to ascertain the true nature and implications of the agreement. However, the international community should not dismiss the concerns raised by President Marcos Jr. and other stakeholders. The West Philippine Sea dispute has long been a contentious issue, and any potential agreements made in relation to it must be scrutinized to ensure the preservation of the Philippines’ territorial integrity.
Source: The Manila Times
