The maritime agreement between the Philippines and Indonesia shows the Aquino administration is not willing to talk with China

After 20 years of negotiations, the Philippines and Indonesia signed an agreement on May 23 on the delimitation of their exclusive economic zone boundary in the Mindanao and Celebes seas.

This is the Philippines' first maritime boundary treaty. According to Philippine President Benigno Aquino, the "milestone agreement" is founded on the principles of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the accord is "solid proof" that the country is committed to settling border problems with its neighbors amicably and equitably.

Not necessarily. The agreement is a reminder that, first of all, the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are not short of maritime disputes among themselves.

In fact, all ASEAN countries used to have, and most of them still have, territorial disputes of one kind or another with their neighbors. In the ASEAN Charter, a whole chapter is devoted to dispute settlement.

And, in spite of its bilateral negotiations with Jakarta, Manila has apparently adopted an entirely different attitude toward its disputes with Beijing over the South China Sea. That is, to take China to international arbitration. By doing so, and joined by Hanoi, Manila intends to create an impression that "the big is bullying the small", and their thinly veiled motive is to demonize China and portray China as an "outlaw" in international disputes to encroach upon its long-held interests.

Philippine Foreign Undersecretary Evan Garcia mentioned "goodwill" and "patience" were the keys to resolving the boundary issue. The irony is: where is the Philippine patience when it comes to disputes with China?

With 20 neighbors on land and at sea, China has more neighbors than almost any other country in the world, yet 90 percent of its land border is already demarcated through negotiations and consultations.

Such a record indicates that China does not lack either the goodwill or patience to resolve disputes with its neighbors.

In the South China Sea disputes, China has long proposed shelving differences and joint exploration and exploitation of resources. China and ASEAN signed a joint declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002, and it has abided by it since.

China proposed to the Philippines in 2010 to establish a bilateral mechanism for regular consultations on the maritime issues, and proposed in 2012 to restart the Mechanism of Confidence-Building Measures. In 2013, China offered 3 billion yuan ($476.2 million) to ASEAN for maritime cooperation. So how can Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario claim that the Philippines has "exhausted almost all political and diplomatic avenues" to negotiate a peaceful settlement of its maritime disputes with China?

Without consulting ASEAN, of which the Philippines is a member, Manila made a surprise move by taking China to international arbitration in March. This unilateral initiative also took the other members of ASEAN by surprise.

True, international judicial institutions can serve as third party arbitrators, but only after no settlement has been reached through peaceful means and all the parties concerned agree to seek arbitration.

As early as 2006, China informed the United Nations in a statement that it would not accept arbitration on territorial sovereignty, maritime demarcation and military activities under Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Manila's unilateral move is a clear breach from the China-ASEAN declaration which stipulates that "the parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes through friendly consultations and negotiations".

Negotiating with one country and suing another at court clearly shows that the Philippine government is adopting double standards in handling the territorial disputes it has with its neighbors. Knowing China will not accept arbitration because of the 2006 exemption, the Philippines exhibits the purpose of seizing the "moral high ground" and tarnishing China's image in the world arena.

Such a double-handed approach raises a question about the credibility of the Philippine government which is never shy of pretending to be a victim. But this "victim" is truly not innocent, when its coastguard killed Chinese fishermen from the mainland and Taiwan in 2000, 2006 and 2013.

China has agreed to negotiate a code of conduct in the South China Sea with ASEAN. China could have easily walked away after the Philippines decided to sue it at international tribunal, but China did not. China is still willing to negotiate with the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members even if this is clearly unfair for China.

On June 10, Aquino said, "our relations (with China) are based on so many more things, not just on this dispute, and that peace and stability are necessary components for our own - for everybody's progress."

If Aquino really wants to mend fences, he knows where to start.

The author is an honorary fellow with Center of China-American Defense Relations, Academy of Military Science.