PH arbitration case vs. China affects coastal and land-locked countries

The cataclysm wrought by the tsunami-like waves of Super Typhoon Haiyan has touched people from all over the world.  Nature’s fury has once again humanized mankind.  The warships of nations who fought in the decisive Battle of Leyte are now converging at this island, to cooperate and provide humanitarian relief.
In times of great human suffering, it is not timely to write about discord, but to reflect on goodwill and understanding.  In this context, I write about the arbitration requested by the Philippines for the peaceful resolution of its dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea.

The Philippines brought this request for arbitration in accordance with Chapter VI of the UN Charter entitled “Pacific Settlement of Disputes.”  Article 33, Paragraph 1 thereof provides: “The Parties to any dispute, the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

The Philippines has chosen to bring this arbitration before the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (Itlos), in accordance with the provisions of Part XV of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (Unclos) entitled: “Settlement of Disputes” since the dispute has been the subject of good faith negotiations between the Philippines and China since 1995.

If the Philippines wins the case, China should be expected to comply with the arbitral decision of Itlos established under Unclos.  China has treaty obligations as a Party to Unclos and is not only a member of the United Nations but also a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council.  The Philippines does not stand alone on the issues before Itlos and expects international law to be respected.

The arbitration case raises issues affecting all the countries of the world, both coastal and land-locked.
According to the Philippines’ Notification for Arbitration, China claims “sovereignty” or “sovereign rights” over some 1.94 million square kilometers, or 70 percent of the West Philippine Sea’s waters and underlying seabed within its so-called nine dash line.

Unless China retreats from this position, China would be claiming “sovereignty” or “sovereign rights” over part of the high seas as well as part of the Area defined in Unclos as the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The Area and its resources, according to Articles 136, 137 and 140 of Unclos, are the common heritage of mankind and cannot be claimed or appropriated by any State but are vested in mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States, whether coastal or land-locked, and taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing States.

China’s “nine dash line” also raises the issue of freedom of navigation in the high seas, which affects all maritime and trading nations, including the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council.
Furthermore, the issues raised by the Philippines over its sovereign rights in its Exclusive Economic Zone and over the submerged features in its continental shelf are the same issues that Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam have with China and, therefore, would have an impact on China’s relations with Asean.

All states expect international law to be respected, especially by those aspiring to be a leader of the international community.  There are great costs to those states that violate treaty obligations of a fundamental nature entered into by the great majority of States.

source:  Manila Times' Column of  Ambassador Jaime S. Bautista
jaime@jaimesbautista.com

The Chinese view on the Philippine arbitration on the West Philippine Sea

Participants to the recently concluded 4th biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law in New Delhi, India last November 15, 2017 heard for the first time the Chinese position on the Philippine arbitral claim on the West Philippines Sea dispute.

In the said conference, I delivered a paper entitled “What next after the Chinese Snub? Examining the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedure: Philippines vs. China”. My paper argued that the issues that the Philippines brought to the arbitral claims, to wit, the validity of China’s nine-dash lines, whether certain low-tide elevations where China has built installations pertain to the Philippines as part of its continental shelf; and whether the waters surrounding the territorial sea of Panatag form part of the Philippines EEZ are issues of interpretation of specific provisions of the UNCLOS and hence, were within the compulsory and binding dispute settlement procedure of the UNCLOS.

Further, while I acknowledged that China’s reservations on maritime delimitation and law enforcement activities in the exercise of sovereign rights were more challenging obstacles to hurdle, they were not insurmountable because the language of the Philippine claim does not call for a ruling involving any of the reservations made by China.

My paper assumed that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over China as party to the proceedings was well settled. This is because China, as a party to the UNCLOS, has accepted the dispute settlement procedure of the Convention, together with all the provisions of the Convention which were all adopted on the basis of consensus.

The Chinese Judge to the International Court of Justice, Judge Xue Hanqin, was present in the conference. Judge Xue is the highest woman official in China prior to her election to the Court. Previously, she served as chief legal adviser and head of the treaties office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry and Ambassador to the Netherlands and Asean. She is said to have been groomed to be part of the Central Bureau of China’s People’s Party had she not opted to join the ICJ. While Judge Xue and I have been good friends, having served together in the Executive Council of the Asian Society of International Law for the past 6 years, I knew it would still be awkward to have her listening to my presentation.

But the most unusual thing happened after my 25-minute presentation. Judge Xue, explaining that since she was the only Chinese present in the conference because the Chinese delegates were denied visas by Indian authorities, took the floor for the next 20 minutes and for the first time expounded extensively on the Chinese position on the Philippine arbitral claim. This was unusual because magistrates, be it from domestic or international courts, will normally refuse to comment on an actual dispute, which could come to their court for adjudication. This certainly applies to the West Philippines Sea dispute.

Judge Xue raised four crucial points. Her first was that the Philippine claim involved territorial claims which is outside the purview of UNCLOS. She added though that “since the end of World War II, the international community, has acknowledged the existence of China’s nine-dash lines with no country ever questioning it until oil resources were discovered in the area.” Without expounding on the nature of the lines, she claimed that it is “not considered as a boundary line” and they “have not affected international navigation in the area.” She claimed that there was “”no international law applied in this regard to the region.”

Second, Judge Xue argued that 40 countries, including China, made declarations to the dispute settlement procedure of the UNCLOS. According to her, this means “these 40 states have not accepted the dispute settlement of the Convention as being compulsory”. She said that “when countries joined UNCLOS I, they are not deemed to have given up all their previous territorial claims.”

Third, she said that as China’s first Ambassador to Asean, she knows that the countries of Asean and China have agreed to a code of conduct relating to the South China Sea. Under this code, disputes must be resolved through negotiations and not through arbitration. She claimed that this obligation was “a substantive obligation binding on all claimant state.”

Fourth, Judge Xue explained that China opted out of the arbitration because “no country can fail to see the design” of the Philippine claim which she described as having “mixed up jurisdiction with the merits.”

She opined that the Philippines’ resort to arbitration complicated what she described as an “impressive process between Asean and China”. What the Philippine did “was to begin with the “complicated part of the South China Sea dispute” rather then with easier ones such as “disaster management.” This later pronouncement all but confirmed that the very limited humanitarian assistance extended to the Philippines by China in the aftermath of Yolanda was because of the Philippine resort to arbitration.

Judge Xue ended her intervention by exhorting the Philippines to consider joint use of the disputed waters, a matter that according to her has been successfully resorted to by China and Vietnam.

While Judge Xue’s intervention made our panel, without a doubt, the most memorable exchange in the conference, her declarations provided us with many answers that China has refused to give us.

We have Judge Xue to thank for this.

source:  Manila Times Column of  Atty. Harry Roque Jr.

Typhoon Yolanda: Cheapskate China Wins No Friends in Philippines

As hundreds of thousands of Filipinos struggled to find food, water, shelter and the bodies of loved ones in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, China quickly dipped into its world-leading $3.7 trillion of currency reserves and came up with … all of $100,000.

That was Beijing’s first miserly offer of aid to the storm-tossed Philippines. By Thursday, an international outcry over China’s stinginess shamed it into upping its pledge to a modest $1.6 million worth of relief materials such as tents and blankets. But the damage was already done.

“It’s very hard to call for de-Americanization and then leave your wallet at home when there’s a human disaster the scale of the typhoon in the Philippines,” says Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group in New York. “Yes, China is a poor country. Yes, they have troubled relations with the Philippines. But this sits badly with anyone thinking about China’s rise in the region.” If he were advising President Xi Jinping, Bremmer says, “I’d push for major humanitarian aid to the Philippines.”

Instead the bulk of that aid is coming from elsewhere: more than $28 million from Australia, $20 million from the U.S., $17 million from the European Union, $16 million from the U.K., $10 million from Japan, $5 million from South Korea, $4 million from the Vatican, $2 million from Indonesia, and huge amounts from official agencies -- the United Nations alone started a $300 million aid appeal.

China was clearly stung by the critical news coverage. South Korean figure skater Kim Yu-na herself gave $100,000 -- about enough to buy nine bottles of a 2006 Romanee-Conti. Even the new Chinese offer is rather paltry. New Zealand’s $167 billion economy is a rounding error compared with China’s $8.4 trillion one. Yet officials in Wellington have coughed up $1.7 million, even more than the People’s Republic.

Insulting Sum

Why the insultingly small sum for a geopolitically vital nation of 106 million people that by many measures is much poorer than China? Manila’s close ties with Washington have always worried China. But this is personal. Philippine President Benigno Aquino refuses to bow to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, and enraged Beijing by daring to challenge its maritime claims before a UN-endorsed tribunal. Aquino also demands that China treat the Philippines, one of Asia’s oldest democracies, as an equal, not a subordinate.

Nations hold grudges, of course. But China’s actions this week dramatically undercut what had been a very deliberate and strenuous -- and supposedly successful -- recent charm offensive. After President Barack Obama skipped out on a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders last month, Xi and Premier Li Keqiang gleefully toured Southeast Asian capitals, handing out investment deals to show how generous China could be with its neighbors, how eager it was for friendly relations.

The Philippines crisis offered an opportunity for China to show it had developed into a mature, cooperative nation and to win goodwill across the region. As a matter of fact, on Friday, Chinese and U.S. troops will even train together for the first time in Hawaii, as part of a drill in which the two nations cooperate in a humanitarian relief operation in a third country. Why not jump in and seek to cooperate in the enormous international rescue effort in the Philippines?

Instead, officials in Beijing find themselves evading awkward questions about their miserliness. Perhaps trying to save a smidgen of face, Beijing first upped its offering to $200,000 through the Red Cross. That was still less than half of the $450,000 the Philippines gave China after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Even now, China’s total offer is far less than the $4.88 million donated to Pakistan after an earthquake there two months ago.

China’s normally quiescent state-run media worried about the fallout. “China’s international image is of vital importance to its interests,” the usually gung-ho Global Times said in an editorial Tuesday. “If it snubs Manila this time, China will suffer great losses.”

Soft Power

One reason China’s efforts to develop its soft power have failed is the utilitarian way Beijing approaches the rest of the world. Instead of using culture, adept diplomacy and trashy movies to seduce other countries, China hands out cold, hard cash. All the investment poured into railways in Indonesia, tunnels in Brazil, power grids in Cambodia, hydroelectric projects in Laos, bridges in Vietnam, roads in Zambia, factories in Malaysia, airports in Myanmar, and mining rigs in Uzbekistan comes with a high cost. In return, China demands complete docility. That’s the message being sent to the Philippines now.

Arvind Subramanian, author of the 2011 book “Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China’s Economic Dominance,” says China is going to be a “peculiar kind of superpower,” one whose attraction is more materialistic than heartfelt. “It won’t have the soft power the U.S. has -- people wanting to come, people wanting to live, people wanting to emulate it,” he told me in Hong Kong last week. “That soft power is lacking, but it will not impede China.”

I’m not so sure. If I were Aquino, I’d tell China to keep its money; maybe Xi could use it to hire a public-relations firm. As badly as the Philippines needs the help, so does China’s image.
(William Pesek is a Bloomberg View columnist.)

To contact the writer of this article: William Pesek in Tokyo at wpesek@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Nisid Hajari at nhajari@bloomberg.net

source:  Bloomberg Column by William Pesek»

William Pesek is based in Tokyo and writes on economics, markets and politics throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

No sign of help for Philippines from China's hospital ship

HONG KONG (Reuters) - While the navies of the United States and its allies rushed to the aid of the typhoon-hit Philippines, a state-of-the-art Chinese hospital ship has stayed at home and in doing so has become a symbol of China's tepid response to the crisis.

The decision not to deploy the 14,000-tonne "Peace Ark", one of the newest and biggest hospital ships in the world, is one that contrasts with a recent charm offensive across Southeast Asia by China as it seeks to bolster ties and ease tension over the disputed South China Sea.

Even China's usually hawkish Global Times, a tabloid owned by the People's Daily state mouthpiece, on Friday called for the Ark to sail to the Philippines, where an international naval flotilla, headed by a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group, is delivering food, water and medicine.

Initially, China pledged $100,000 in aid to the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan roared across central islands a week ago, and a further $100,000 through the Chinese Red Cross - figures dwarfed by multi-million dollar donations from countries and corporations around the world.

While tension between China and the Philippines has escalated recently over Manila's bid for a U.N. court ruling against Beijing's claim to much of the South China Sea, analysts and diplomats say its paltry response to the humanitarian crisis could undermine diplomatic gains.

The Chinese government has not ruled out more aid but foreign analysts are puzzled by the absence of the Peace Ark, a ship tailor-made for such emergencies.

"It is a self-inflicted wound to Chinese influence and prestige," said Rory Medcalf, a security analyst at Australia's Lowy Institute.

China's Defence Ministry did not respond to a request for comment about whether the ship would be sent to the Philippines.

Just last month, the Peace Ark returned to its Shanghai berth after an unprecedented four-month, eight-country deployment that saw it work with other navies and treat thousands of patients during goodwill stops.

"EFFECTIVE POSTURE"
As part of the voyage dubbed "Harmonious Mission 2013", the Ark - with 300 hospital beds, 8 operating theaters and more than 100 medical staff - joined a disaster relief exercise led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes the Philippines.

Just this week in Hawaii, U.S and Chinese troops staged their first disaster relief exercise - another sign that China is increasingly keen to use its expanding military muscle for humanitarian, as well as security needs.
Over the past year, China has stepped up attempts to win over the region, despite the tension over the South China Sea, with a flurry of visits by President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang and economic deals, while re-enforcing a message of "comprehensive strategic partnership".

Medcalf said he was "astounded" that China's leaders had not used the Peace Ark to make a major gesture to the region during the Philippines' crisis.

Instead of a move that could have served their interests by neutralising the Philippines diplomatically and sending the message to the region that the United States was no longer needed, they had played into the hands of Washington which has announced a pivot, or re-balance, towards Asia.
"It is showing that the re-balance is still real and the presence of American forces in the region continues to be a very effective posture," Medcalf said.

Austin Strange, an analyst at the U.S. Naval War College's China Maritime Studies Institute, said China's weak response contrasted with what had been increasingly active anti-piracy and humanitarian assistance internationally, not just in Asia.

"China immediate response to (typhoon) Haiyan is arguably regrettable from a foreign policy standpoint," Strange said.

Amid domestic debate and foreign criticism, the government announced a further $1.64 million in aid on Thursday as Foreign Ministry officials played down online comments urging China to give the Philippines nothing. (Additional reporting by Megha Rajagopalan, Li Hui, Grace Li and Ben Blanchard; Editing by James Pomfret and Robert Birsel)


source:  Yahoo / Reuters

Japan aims to expand defense force to keep China, N Korea in check

Japan has traditionally focused on ensuring the quality of its defense forces, but will now seek more tangible, quantitative increases in personnel and equipment to counter the threats posed by China and North Korea.
     On Monday, a government panel on national security and military capabilities began full discussions on new national defense guidelines, which will be finalized by year-end.

     The existing document, drawn up in 2010, ended a policy of installing defense capabilities across the nation and instead placed an emphasis on mobility to counter the Chinese Navy, North Korea's ballistic missiles, and terrorism threats.

     Prime Minister Shinzo Abe decided in January to draft new defense guidelines; and defense-related expenditures are expected to grow for the second straight year in fiscal 2014.

     The Defense Ministry has identified five key areas for future Self-Defense Forces deployments: securing the seas and airspace around Japan, dealing with attacks on remote islands, defending against ballistic missile attacks, building cyberspace and space defense capabilities, and relief efforts following major disasters. The ministry says its requests for next fiscal year's budget include new early-warning aircraft, drones, the creation of amphibious units, and repairing Aegis ships that are part of the nation’s missile defense. It is also considering having the SDF deploy the MV-22 Osprey transport aircraft.

     The 2010 guidelines set the size of the Ground Self-Defense Force at 154,000. The ministry has proposed raising the number to 159,000, according to the head of the security and defense panel.

     The ministry is also eyeing capabilities to attack missile bases in North Korea. But that plan has met with resistance within the ruling coalition, and both the Foreign Ministry and the U.S. have expressed concerns that such a move could provoke China and South Korea.

source:  Nikkei Asian Review

HK and PH: Manila Hostage Crisis in 2010

Why Mayor Estrada Is Wrong on Hong Kong

Posted by Joe America on November 6, 2013

Subtitled: Filipinos Should Not Move to the Back of the Bus

As is often the case, kindly bear with me as I wander through some facts and acts, and examine things a bit, before arriving at a conclusion.

I’m sure most of you are aware of the background of the incident commonly known as the “Bus Massacre”. Eight Hong Kong tourists were killed on August 23, 2010, when an angry Filipino, holding the tourists hostage on a bus, opened fire on the hostages as Filipino police, trying to apprehend him, charged the bus.
The case has festered for three years because Hong Kong demands apology and remuneration from the Philippines while President Aquino holds to a “no apology” position. It is about as intricate as an issue comes. It reflects cross-cultural dynamics, national sovereignty, legal issues, and a lot of human emotions.

A Quick-Study of the Situation
Here is a wide-ranging list of some pertinent details that are in some way related:

• Hong Kong holds that the Philippine government was negligent in how officials handled the situation, resulting in unnecessary deaths. Hong Kong demands an official apology from the Philippine government, cash payments to families, punishment of officials in charge, and clear steps to assure a repeat will not occur.
• The Philippines (President Aquino) holds that the incident was the result of the hostage taker’s transgressions, and that Philippine officials responded the best that they could in a circumstance of considerable danger and unpredictability. The Philippines has expressed its regrets to the families of the slain tourists and offered financial remuneration to victims.
• Yesterday, November 5, 2013, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive issued a 30-day ultimatum to the Philippines, essentially “do as we tell you or face sanctions.”
• The bus scene was broadcast live by Philippine television stations. The hostage taker could see the approach of police from a television monitor on the bus.
• The Philippines conducted an immediate, comprehensive investigation and shared its report directly with China. The report was highly critical of the handling of matters by Philippine authorities. Indeed, Filipinos generally consider the matter “bungled” by government and police officials. The investigative report recommended charges against 15 people or organizations.
• China may have hardened Mr. Aquino’s stand by presenting a detailed list of instructions as to how the Philippines should deal with matters. Mr. Aquino considered the letter insulting. Hong Kong officials deny such a letter was sent.
• Manila Mayor Estrada, seeking to diffuse a situation which serves neither Hong Kong nor the Philippines well, has tried to deliver an official apology from the City of Manila to Hong Kong, along with a promise of payments to families. Hong Kong declined to receive the apology and angrily re-iterated its demands.
• Hong Kong is a part of China.
• China and the Philippines are in a territorial dispute near Philippine coasts. The Philippines has taken the matter to the United Nations arbiter for resolution, over China’s objection.
• China’s leaders refuse to visit the Philippines.
• Racially demeaning slurs fly both directions in social commentary.
• Hong Kong was accused by a human rights group in 2001 of racially discriminatory government acts toward foreign workers; Hong Kong defended itself by saying that proposals made by the organization would heighten racial discord.
• Mayor Estrada is a member of UNA, a major political party running against President Aquino’s LP candidates and candidates of other parties aligned with LP.

What Do We Take from This?
This is not as simple as Hong Kong would make it. “You messed up. Apologize, pay up and jail some people. Prove it won’t happen again.”
Some things are obvious:

• First and foremost, the matter was tragic for the Hong Kong families. No question.
• Second, there is no question as to who murdered, or caused the killing of, Hong Kong tourists. The hostage taker.
• Third, there is no question as to the poor handling of the matter by Philippine government officials and police.

The facts are clear, the investigations done, the matter understood.
To the extent that there are enduring issues, they pertain more to the relationship between Hong Kong – or China – and the Philippines than they do regarding the particulars of what happened.
The Philippine government is not without compassion, and has expressed its regrets to the families of those killed and injured. Certainly, no Philippine official WANTED this tragedy to occur. That innocence of motive, and the forthright self-examination undertaken by the Philippines, seems to have escaped the Chinese.
The incident remains hurtful as long as the matter is not laid to rest. The matter is laid to rest in the Philippines, officially, but not in Hong Kong, officially.
One can surmise that if the situation were reversed, Hong Kong officials would take essentially the same position as the Philippines has taken. It is the appropriate stance to take to protect sovereignty and legal rights. And, of course, if the situation were reversed, Filipinos would be outraged at Hong Kong’s refusal to apologize and there would be rallies in protest in the Philippines.
A neutral observer would argue that the matter should go to an international court for resolution, but no such steps have been taken. When the Philippines took China to the international arbiter over territorial rights, China objected angrily. One can imagine the same reaction if the Hong Kong matter were taken by the Philippines to an international arbiter for resolution. The Chinese do not respect such venues and are not willing to subjugate their national interests to other states or international courts.
Yet Hong Kong expects the Philippines to subjugate her national interests to Hong Kong.
As with the island territorial dispute, there is only one resolution that is acceptable to Hong Kong. The one that Hong Kong – that China – wants.
The Philippines could diffuse the anger by bowing to Hong Kong’s demands, but doing so would:

• suggest there was a willful negligence rather than incompetence,
• set a precedent of legal and financial obligation for future incidents that had tragic results,
• infringe on sovereign decisions of the Philippine state,
• risk encouraging Chinese adventurism (China seeing the Philippines as weak).

Clearly, diplomatic restraint is not a hallmark of Hong Kong’s approach. One cannot help but reflect back on Taiwan’s outsized outrage against the Philippines regarding the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman by Philippine Coast Guard troops. BEFORE the Philippines or Taiwan had investigated the incident.
Another Disturbing Time
This Chinese attitude of superior morality, superiority of act and perspective, reminds me of the United States in the 1960′s when many whites claimed superiority over other races, and government laws supported the view. When white racial stereotypes, bigotry and laws were challenged in the 1960′s, the white response in some parts of the country was anger. Much like the Chinese who relentlessly voice a loud disgust, disdain and condemnation of Philippine’s acts.
It was an ugly time in the U.S.
Blacks who did not behave were punished, sometimes in the courts, sometimes vigilante style. There was only one race that determined what was correct. It was white. Blacks were instructed to:

• Drink from the black drinking fountains.
• Visit the black bathrooms.
• Sit in the back of the bus.
• Stay out of our white schools.

Heroes emerged from the fracas, from the push-back by black Americans. Perhaps the two most notable were Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks (cover photo).
Rosa Parks changed the world the day that she decided she deserved to sit in the front of the bus, no matter what happened.
Is China Racist?
Clearly there is an ugliness to what is going on in the seas between China and her neighbors.
There is an edginess, a hostility to Chinese behavior that is disturbing. The Taiwan incident. The Hong Kong incident. The conflict over islands. China demands. Demands. Demands. Insults, condemns, expresses outrage and demands.
Disturbing.

Clearly, the Philippines is not behaving the way China wants.
Should the Philippines “behave”?

I have written elsewhere, and cited literature, that China’s history is steeped in disdain for the darker natives who inhabit lands across the seas. This is an aspect of her “Middle Earth” perspective, being the center of all that is right and important about the world.

Well, it is unnecessary here to make that kind of distasteful observation, of racism. I know too many Chinese in the United States who are educated and intelligent and not at all racist. And I know that the Chinese in the U.S. were sorely discriminated against in the 1800′s when the railroads were built substantially with Chinese sweat labor. So it cuts both ways.

So I won’t lift the heavy finger of racism here. The Chinese thuggery very likely emanates from its military cadre. They certainly issue the most racially tinged threats. And perhaps it is merely their authoritarian bent that needs to be brought into a better diplomatic line by Chinese leaders.

So perhaps it is enough to say that China – and Hong Kong – and Taiwan – display a similar striking disregard for the independence and sovereignty of neighbor states, and particularly of the Philippines.
Where is the diplomatic restraint that gives credit to the Philippines for wanting to right its wrongs, for wanting to punish those who acted illegally or rashly in the bus incident? Or credits the Philippines for being forthright and candid with her investigation. Where is the respect for the Philippines as a separate, independent, sovereign state?

The current mantra from Hong Kong is “an apology is not enough.” It is the tenor of an adult lecturing a child.

Such offensive demands.

Why Mayor Estrada Is Wrong
Mayor Estrada’s goals are honorable:

• Get this problem behind us.
• Build a harmonious commercial, tourism and OFW relationship with neighbor Hong Kong.
• Protect Filipino workers in Hong Kong.

There are pragmatic reasons why it is wrong:

• It establishes a precedence of guilt for future government acts that, through the acts of criminal or unstable minds, end up tragically.
• It risks encouraging Chinese adventurism by showing the Philippines as weak.
• It undermines the President’s firm stance which protects the sovereignty of the Philippines in its broader resistance against Chinese territorial expansion. (It is akin to VP Binay’s going outside the chain of command to try to strike a peace agreement in Zamboaga.)

I’m inclined not to read political manipulations into the Mayor’s acts. I believe he wants a cure, plain and simple.

But here’s my real objection.

Mayor Estrada would have the Philippines move to the back of the bus. As if we are to know our superiors, and respect their demands.

No.

It is up to China – and Hong Kong – and Taiwan – to respect Philippine good faith, good intent, and straight dealing. It is up to the Chinese to grant the Philippines the right to exist as a self-determined state of laws and good will.

The appropriate neutral ground for a dispute is an international arbiter. Resolution of the dispute cannot come from Hong Kong over the sovereign rights of the Philippine state to manage her own affairs.
President Aquino’s insistence on a firm, law-based approach is offensive to the Chinese. As was Rosa Park’s insistence that she be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, to whites.

Indeed, standing on principle presents risks. The Philippines risks the well-being of Filipino workers in Hong Kong, innocents caught up in the unrestrained emotions of the Chinese. In the mob reaction fueled by a Chinese press that is almost as obnoxious as her military leaders. And the Philippines risks another tear in the relationship between China and the Philippines.

But what does it say to Asia – indeed, to the world – if the Philippines moves to the back of the bus, as instructed by China?

As it was in 1963, so it is in 2013, exactly fifty years later. It is the principle that matters.
It is important that China learn that all states stand equal, one to the other. It would be even better if China could somehow comprehend that her leadership in Asia can best come by DEFENDING her neighbors’ sovereign rights and territorial claims, not attacking them.

Short of that kind of renewed insight, the Philippines must do what the Philippines must do. In a respectful world filled with independent and earnest sovereign states, the Philippines determines where she sits.
Not China.

source:  http://joeam.com/2013/11/06/why-mayor-estrada-is-wrong-on-hong-kong/comment-page-3/#comment-14747