By Mario Luteria
In the complex tapestry of Philippine media, few issues elicit as much passion and divergent opinion as the territorial dispute in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). Two prominent columnists, Antonio Contreras and Rigoberto “Bobi” Tiglao, stand as emblematic figures of this debate, offering starkly different perspectives on the country’s stance toward Chinese encroachment in these contested waters.
Antonio Contreras, writing for the Manila Times, has often struck a chord with readers for his incisive critiques of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s foreign policy. Contreras contends that during Duterte’s six-year term, the Philippines’ posture towards China shifted from one of principled defiance to a more accommodating stance. He argues that the Duterte administration, despite bold promises, failed to counter Chinese aggression effectively in the WPS.
Duterte’s campaign pledge to ride a jetski to the Spratly Islands and plant the Philippine flag—a powerful symbol of nationalistic fervor—remained an unfulfilled promise. Instead, Contreras observes, the reality was a policy pivot that saw the Philippines acquiescing to, and even facilitating, China’s maritime ambitions. Under Duterte’s watch, China intensified its activities in areas well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ), constructing artificial islands and militarizing disputed territories.
In stark contrast stands Rigoberto “Bobi” Tiglao, also a columnist for the Manila Times. Tiglao has garnered attention, and criticism, for his seemingly contrarian views on the WPS issue. He has argued that the concept of an EEZ, as it pertains to the Philippines’ claims in the South China Sea, is not as clear-cut as widely believed. Tiglao’s stance effectively undermines the Philippines’ position, aligning more closely with China’s narrative and downplaying the significance of international rulings, such as the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision which invalidated China’s expansive nine-dash line claims.
Tiglao’s perspective suggests a level of acceptance, if not outright endorsement, of China’s territorial assertions. This viewpoint has perplexed many, given the apparent conflict with national interest. Critics argue that Tiglao’s position fails to acknowledge the strategic and economic importance of the WPS and the broader implications for Philippine sovereignty and regional stability.
Contreras, on the other hand, has been vocal about the need for a robust defense of Philippine territorial claims. He asserts that Duterte’s approach not only compromised the country’s sovereignty but also set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. By failing to take a firm stand against Chinese encroachment, the Philippines risks losing its foothold in a region of critical strategic importance.
In his column piece, Contreras emphasized President Bongbong Marcos’ firm stance on the matter compared to the previous Duterte administration.
PBBM has always resolutely declared to “never give an inch of Philippine territory,” in obvious reference to Chinese encroachment.
The divergence between Contreras and Tiglao underscores a broader debate within the Philippines about how best to navigate the complex and often fraught relationship with China.
On one hand, there is a call for assertiveness and the defense of national interests, as championed by Contreras.
On the other, there is a push for a more conciliatory approach, as advocated by Tiglao, which some argue could lead to greater economic cooperation and stability, albeit at the potential cost of territorial concessions.
This debate is not merely academic. It has real-world implications for the Philippines’ foreign policy and its standing in the international community.
The West Philippine Sea is not just a territorial dispute; it is a test of the country’s resolve to uphold its sovereignty and secure its maritime resources for future generations.
As the Philippines continues to grapple with these complex issues, the voices of commentators like Contreras and Tiglao will remain influential.
Their differing perspectives offer a window into the broader national discourse on how to balance the imperatives of sovereignty, economic interests, and regional stability in an increasingly multipolar world.
In the end, the question remains: will the Philippines assert its rightful claims in the WPS, or will it, as Tiglao might suggest, settle for a seat at the table, content to enjoy its bowl of shark’s fin soup, even as it surrenders a piece of its maritime heritage?
The future of the West Philippine Sea is not just a matter of territorial control; it is a test of national identity and sovereignty. As the Philippines looks to navigate these turbulent waters, the need for a coherent and assertive foreign policy has never been more critical. The voices of Contreras and Tiglao reflect the broader debate within the nation—a debate that will shape the Philippines’ path forward in the years to come. (elami/PAN)
