Bulang, Jan Erwin F. Phlo 182

2011 – 97523 05/15/20015

China’s Dangerous Game: a threat to Philippines’ sovereignty

There is a greater tension happening now in the South China Sea and the risk that a conflict may arise is significant. Other countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan have also competing territorial claims over the disputed island which was said to have possible extensive reserves of oil and gas. Amidst the commotion on conflicting claims, the freedom of navigation is also in breach especially between the greatest ally of the Philippines, which is the United States, against China over the right of U.S. vessels to navigate in the mentioned sea given that their claim is that they have the sovereignty of it. The pressure was also caused by China’s embarkation on rising military power which has been from the past decades given an enormous boost of modernization especially on maritime military forces and naval capabilities for a reason that they want to enforce might of jurisdiction and rule on the disputed islands. In result, the one who greatly suffers are its smaller neighbor countries, particularly the Philippines. The Philippines have had a long time claim over the islands located in the South China Sea [we call it in local the West Philippine Sea] and which we identify the islands as Kalayaan Islands. We even establish a little community in order to assert that the island is governed by the Philippine state. However, a looming conflict begins between China and Philippines over the abundance of natural gas deposits on the area. They said that the section of that sea later identified as Scarborough Shoal, particularly in Reed Bank, located eighty nautical miles from Palawan, has vast deposits of oil and minerals which would of course translates into an excellent source of revenue for the country that will governed it. Certainly, the Shoal resembles a precious gem that is sought by admirers for special interests and benefits. The Philippines has only one alternative to address the issue that is to file a complaint on the international tribunal against the coercion and bullying of China amidst the rising tension the problem it shaped.

I think the problem in the meaning on this particular social issue is that it is embedded on the intention, social conventions and dissimilarity of the approach regarding the issue of both China and the Philippines. In terms of putting a meaning of what China wanted to achieve, in the point of view of the smaller affected countries for instance the Philippines, they [Chinese] wants to establish military might and strategic placement on South East Asia which would eventually enforce domination on its neighboring countries, and in Asia as a whole. They want to enforce jurisdiction and sovereignty over weaker nations so as to establish hegemony. On one hand, as for the Chinese, they just want to take what they think their own. They want to build with it, to

establish power and dominance for whatever purposes they may have. It shall always create an implicit implication that threatens other global powers especially including United States. We can see that the outlook of both countries on the issue seems out of sync and that it creates uncertainty to what should be the proper stance on addressing the problem. The intention of China is more what the Philippines and other countries can stand. Although we cannot really identify what is their purpose might be and that confusion adds up to the problem of meaning.

The case I presume falls to the syntagmatic relationship of the signifier and the signified. It is clear that in the realm of meaning, we apparently evaluate the relationship of two countries which is present in our analysis. The signifier in the situation is the entity of China and Philippines as a country. Consequently, the signified are in the form of representations by which for China is military might and strategic placement while Philippines represent insecurity and survivability. Another factor that makes the issue baffling is social conventions. We know for a fact that cultures varies from different countries, it is what we hold dear but sometimes it brings us to oppositions. As an analysis of China compare to Philippines, what I can consider as binary opposite attributes of both are is that the former is more dominant, influential, economically stable, and mighty, on the other hand, the latter is submissive, not influential, economically unstable, and less powerful. And by this characteristic, we can infer that the unmarked is China which is the privilege country while the marked is the Philippines, lesser of a privilege.

The semiotics’ concept of myth also can be examined in this issue. We have studied that signs and codes are sometimes generated by myth and in result maintains them as they are. Our popular notion of myth is that it suggests beliefs which are demonstrably false, but when it is being use it does not necessarily implies. According to Lakoff and Johnson, like metaphors, myths help us to make sense our experiences especially in the culture to where we belong (1980, 185-6). In addition, for Barthes, myths serve as ideal function of naturalization – that is to naturalize the culture, in other words, to make the cultural and historical values, beliefs and attitude central on the way things works (1977). In the China’s case, they feed us with false claims that they own the entirety of South China Sea on the basis of historical accounts taken from old books and testaments as they maintain. And we do not even know if it is authentic or genuine to serve as an ultimate evidence to back their claim. And so, we can consider this case as a myth because we deem it as not accurate and a false justification. Furthermore, since we also established that social conventions contribute to the problem of meaning, we can also include the concept of codes in the matter. The meaning of a sign depends on the code within which is situated, it provides framework to which signs make sense. And as I have mentioned earlier, social conventions varies from place to place to which a code is created just like the code of conduct from China is different from the code in the Philippines. It eventually manifests on the method that these countries used in asserting their claim against each other: China used historical claims and Philippines used the rule of law in where it submitted legal documents and complaints on the tribunal. Moreover, the language barrier adds up to the differing adherence of code by both countries.

It is difficult to identify a resolution to the issue for a reason that the problem of meaning is complex to deal with. However, what I can think of a possible solution to address the problem is to come up with a bilateral agreement only for the case of China vs. Philippines. The government of both nations must come up with concurrence that would eventually results into a settlement through diplomatic means so as to prevent impending arm struggle, and since of course this is what our country the Philippines is always trying to avoid, to the fact that we cannot afford to go to war especially in an adversary as gigantic as China.

References:

Chandler, Daniel (2002) Semiotics: The Basics (Second Edition). Published by Routledge

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1980): Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Barthes, Roland (1977): Image-Music-Text. London: Fontana Press