Agenda of the next president: Foreign policy

Starting Feb. 9, 2016, the Inquirer is coming out with a 10-part series on pressing national concerns that should be high on the agenda of the five contenders in the May 9 presidential election. The series should help Filipinos choose wisely the country’s next leader.

In line with our “ThINQ. Vote.” advocacy, we have asked the presidential candidates to outline their concrete plans of action in dealing with 10 decades-long issues—poverty, economy and jobs, food security, peace and order, corruption, healthcare, foreign policy, traffic, climate change and Internet connectivity.

The Philippines has taken its maritime dispute with China to the United Nations for resolution and entered into a new defense deal with the United States for support. Though worried about China’s actions, Filipinos are also opposed to increased US presence in their country. Here the presidential candidates state their plans for handling the dispute and improving the country’s standing in the international community.

INQUIRER.net is publishing verbatim the candidates’ action plans on foreign policy. For the summary of the 10 pressing issues, go to our special Elections 2016 website.

Jejomar Binay

A Binay presidency will protect and preserve the sovereign rights of the Philippines under a principle of global cooperation and multilateralism.

A Binay presidency will be firm in upholding our national interest while promoting a constructive bilateral dialogue with other countries such as China. At the same time, it will also pursue all other legal options to promote our sovereign rights, including continued consultation with and securing the support of the international community and our allies. Most of the disputed areas are in international waters and, therefore, keeping air and sea lanes open will not be a concern for the Philippines alone but for the international community as well. By having this common interest, countries, including China, will need to resolve disputes through dialogue and the rule of international law.

Rody Duterte

Grace Poe

Mar Roxas

I think that we are on the right track: We will continue to pursue our claims at the United Nations. Our progress in the arbitration case in the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Seas (ITLOS) signifies our commitment to the rule of law—whoever you are, whatever your country is, in the eyes of the law, we are all equal. We have constantly maintained this principle and that gives us a strong moral foundation for our case. In addition, we also know that China is a signatory in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which is the legal basis for our case. That’s why we’re optimistic on the legal front.

In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the diplomatic community are also hard at work to come up with a Binding Code of Conduct for the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). It helps that other countries know the Philippines to be true to their word; they know that integrity has increasingly become the brand of governance in the Philippines. The world is also seeing the success of the Philippines. That’s why our soft power is also increasing. We are leveraging this to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are exhausted to resolve tensions that have arisen in the West Philippine Sea.

But we also recognize that this issue is not the totality of our relations with China. At the end of the day, we want to achieve stability, which is in the interest of all parties involved. Without stability, we can’t have long-lasting prosperity. Otherwise, our country’s economic resurgence will always be under threat.

Miriam Defensor-Santiago

We must assert the national territorial integrity of the Philippines. Once elected, I will call for the renegotiation of the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States or, if the US refuses renegotiation, for the total abrogation of the military deal. I will also adopt a second level of diplomacy with regard to the West Philippine Sea dispute, as the other party takes keen interest in bilateral negotiation bordering on conciliation, relying apparently on the principles set forth in the UNCLOS, Part 15, Section 1. It is not true at all that the Arbitral Tribunal of UNCLOS, Annex 7, may decide on the Philippine side in the face of China’s excepting itself from the application of Articles 297 and 298 of the UNCLOS. My administration will also:

RELATED VIDEOS

Read more...