What's in a Name?

. . . that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, or in this case, a sea by any other name would still smell as salty. And fishy. 

Recent incidents in the sea south of China, east of Vietnam, and west of the Philippines have stirred our government to flex whatever political muscle it can muster to [diplomatically but forcibly] tell China not to mess with Philippine territory, or with any other territory that we claim. Like it would ever make a difference. If this sea were a toddlers' playground, China would be the biggest, meanest, double-dealing bully harassing a host of teeny-weeny and [often] gullible Southeast Asian kids. The outcome of a potential fight is inevitable. But that's beside the point.

What kind of flexing can we do, anyway? Can we show our naval might in the patrol of our waters and intimidate Asia's [and the world's] growing giant into respecting international norms and laws? Can we make it heed common sense [Come on, claim an entire sea to be exclusively yours, even waters a thousand miles off your coast? Anak ng tokwa, naglolokohan ata tayo dito.]? With our naval assets and China's relentlessly aggressive posture, that is as unlikely as Lebron James winning an NBA championship or getting a warm welcome back in Cleveland.

Caught in such dire and limiting circumstances, the government has resorted to do what it does best: Speak. Express outrage. Condemn the intrusion. And call South China Sea the "West Philippine Sea," the Reed Bank  "Recto Bank." A bill has been passed to make the names official, arguing that it asserts our sovereignty and strengthens our claims over these areas. It makes sense. After all, the other camp banks on how everyone seems to call it "South China Sea" to further its own.

But what's behind the name? Does anybody know how big West Philippine Sea is, how far from the coasts it goes, or what shape it makes in the map? The country has yet to define the extent of its maritime zone. While there are bills pending in Congress that address this, the term "West Philippine Sea" is still absent in present versions. Maybe Rommel Banlaoi is right. As it stands right now, the name "is an empty label that cannot withstand the harsh reality of international politics."

But let's not trip all over ourselves yet. While naming something without fully defining what that something is may be just a bag of fluff, there is still some merit to it. Bestowing a name over something is an act of power, control, maybe even jurisdiction. And from a perspective that believes in the power of ideas, instilling in a nation's hearts and minds that something [no matter how hazy] is rightfully theirs -- and that they ought to protect it from those that seek to take it from them -- is the first step toward action. Never mind the lack of  definition and legalities for now. They can come in after. Very soon, I hope.  

So, what's in a name? It's the beginning of possession. But only just the beginning. Let's all hope that the government follows through.