Philippines to challenge China sea claim before UN

MANILA, Philippines - Despite Chinese requests to delay it, the Philippines is filing on March 30 its memorandum challenging before the United Nations China’s territorial claims over the South China Sea.

The memorandum, called a Memorial in international law, will be filed with the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) at The Hague in the Netherlands, contesting China’s 9-dash line territorial rule.

Under the 9-dash line rule, China claims almost the whole of the South China Sea as part of its territory, but the Philippines and three other Southeast Asian nations are staking various claims to parts of the area.

Sources said the Chinese government had asked President Aquino through back channels to wait a little longer before filing the Memorial.

A delay in the filing would be seen as an indication of Philippine willingness to improve ties with China, a source quoted a Chinese official as saying.

China has informed the Philippines it will reciprocate accordingly, and will withdraw its ships from Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal to Filipinos, Huangyan island to the Chinese) to restore the relationship to where it was before April 8, 2012.

The source said China considers the suit, filed in January 2013, as an obstacle to improving its ties with the Philippines.

“We don’t expect the Philippines to withdraw the suit because we understand that national pride is at stake,” a Chinese official reportedly told counterparts in the Philippines, the source said. “But we hope you can delay it."

The Chinese official reportedly added, “In our culture, bringing someone to court is like assaulting him.”

China also said that if the Philippines delays filing the claim, it would not establish a South China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) like it did in the East China Sea which included air space over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands.

An ADIZ is airspace in which the country that imposed it requires identification, location and control over civil aircraft passing through that zone, in the interest of national security.

China also said once the “obstacle” is removed, the Philippines can expect increased economic opportunities, including the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist destination.

Philippine-China ties have been strained since April 8, 2012, when the lone Philippine warship BRP Gregorio del Pilar apprehended Chinese fishing vessels in the Bajo de Masinloc area, 124 nautical miles off Zambales, prompting China to send Chinese Marine Surveillance (CMS) ships to the area.
At the height of the 57-day standoff, more than 80 Chinese vessels surrounded two Philippine ships—one from the Philippine Coast Guard and the other from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources—that had replaced the Gregorio del Pilar.

On June 4, 2012, the Philippines pulled out the two ships and never sent any back to the area but China kept three there.

On Jan. 27, 2014, the Armed Forces of the Philippines reported that Filipino fishermen were sprayed with water when they got near the Chinese Coast Guard ships.

China’s request was discussed in a Jan. 30 special cabinet meeting, where the President gave Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza a free hand in handling the case.

In a media briefing at the UP Law Center last month, Jardeleza disclosed that the Arbitral Tribunal acceded to the Philippine request not to separate the jurisdiction aspect from the merits of the case.
“Jurisdiction and merits will be discussed in the Memorial together,” Jardeleza said, adding that this will gave the Philippines the “tactical advantage.”

“We are very strong on the merits and by discussing the merits more and more you gain an advantage hoping to convince the tribunal that they should take the case and rule that they have jurisdiction,” he said.

Legal experts are concerned that the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal would consider the issues raised by the Philippines as territorial disputes. The Tribunal decides only on disputes on overlapping maritime zones, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decides on territorial disputes.

In the ICJ, however, both parties would have to agree to submit the dispute to the Court. China has refused to participate in the case filed by the Philippines.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in a speech before the Philippine Women’s Judges Association early this month said, “The Philippines’ arbitration case against China is solely a maritime dispute and does not involve any territorial dispute.”

Carpio added: “The Philippines is asking the tribunal if China’s 9-dash line can negate the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as guaranteed under UNCLOS. The Philippines is also asking the tribunal if certain rocks above water at high tide, like Scarborough Shoal, generate a 200 nautical mile (NM) EEZ or only a 12 NM territorial sea. The Philippines is further asking the tribunal if China can appropriate low-tide elevations (LTEs), like Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, within the Philippines’ EEZ. These disputes involve the interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS."

Jardeleza said the Philippines in the Memorial will not ask the court to say who owns Panatag shoal. “We are arguing that they are within our Economic Exclusive Zone and therefore under the rules of UNCLOS we have exclusive rights to fish within that area."

Jardeleza summed up the Philippine line of argument in the Memorial to convince the Tribunal that it has jurisdiction: “Our claim is a very narrow one, land dominates the sea. This is not a case about land; this is a case about the maritime waters which is perfectly under UNCLOS.”
Jardeleza said he expects the Court to give China time to respond before it starts the hearing. It may call for oral arguments or ocular inspection. He said it may take the Tribunal three years to decide from the date of the filing in January 2013.

The Arbitral Court panel of judges is headed by Thomas Mensah from Ghana. Members are Rudiger Wolfrum from Germany, Stanislaw Pawlak from Poland, Jean-Pierre Cot from France, Alfred Soons from The Netherlands.

The Philippine legal team is headed by Paul Reichler, a Washington-based lawyer from the Foley Hoag law firm, British law professors Philippe Sands and Alan Boyle, and Bernard Oxman from the University of Miami's Law school.

Jardeleza said the public declarations of Southeast Asian countries, the United States, and even the European Union against the 9-dash line strengthens the Philippine case.

“We are a small country but we plan to win big in this,” Jardeleza said.

(VERA Files is put out by veteran journalists taking a deeper look at current issues. Vera is Latin for truth.)

source:  Philippine Star (Vera Files) | Updated March 27, 2014

China’s retaliation?

Former Secretary Raffy Alunan warned on ANC this week that China will retaliate in response to our filing of our Memorial in our  pending arbitration against China under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Citing the earlier move of China in banning the entry of our bananas into their territory, Alunan warned that China’ s retaliation could be in the form of further economic sanctions and worse, even sabotage. Referring to the possibility of the latter, Alunan warned that the Chinese could resort to sabotage of our power grid, since the National Power Grid Corporation is 40% owned by a Chinese company. He also warned about possible cyber attacks against our networks.  A pro-China advocate has dismissed Alunan’s warnings as unlikely. I prefer not to dismiss the warnings as in fact; history has shown that nothing is impossible in the field of international relations. Who would have thought that the United States would persist in its illegal occupation of Iraq? Neither did we expect that Russia would be so brazen as to annex Crimea?   Simply put, we have to prepare for China’s retaliations, whatever form it may take.

Alunan was actually warning about two things: one, China’s unwavering claim to the nine-dash lines; which will persist whether or not we continue with our arbitration. Second, the fact that China has not been shy in telling the world that it takes offense to the fact that it was sued before an international tribunal. Judge Xue Henquin explained in the Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law that this was a “cultural” trait of the Chinese. They just don’t like to be sued.

Alunan’s warnings therefore should be qualified. Insofar as the Chinese claim to the West Philippine Sea is concerned, China will not only resort to sanctions and sabotage in order to defend its claim. In fact, its published defense policy is to develop sea-denial capability in the West Philippines Sea from 2010 to 2020. This means that it will not have second thoughts in ousting countries, even through the illegal use of force, that it views as “intruders” in the disputed islands and shoals in the Spartlys and Panatag. On the other hand, given China’s antipathy towards the arbitration, which, if the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction will surely result in judgment against it, China will apply, all sorts of pressure for the country to withdraw the same. This is where the sanctions and sabotage may come to play, as warned by Alunan.

In any case, Alunan’s warning about the sabotage on our power grid deserves serious attention. With allegations of price fixing now hounding our power producers, Congress should seriously re-examine its earlier view that power generation and distribution are not in the nature of public convenience. Had they been as such as in fact they are, the state could have exercised the necessary regulation that could have prevented these allegations of price fixing today. Moreover, power generation and distribution are franchises. They are for the public with the latter as end users. Ergo, both businesses are hence vested with the public interest and hence, their entitlement to engage in these kind of business should be in the nature of a privilege and not a right. The consequence of this would be an outright revocation of their franchise if the allegations of price fixing could be proven.

In any case, while I fully concur with Alunan that the Philippines should be weary of China’s retaliation, perhaps we should still not be too alarmed on the consequences of the filing of our memorial due on the 30th of this month.

I think what China objects to is the initiation of the arbitral proceedings itself and not the memorial per se. In fact the Chinese, through Judge Xue, considers the arbitration as a “substantive breach” of the code of conduct agreed upon by China and ASEAN. What baffles me on this point is how China can complaint that a peaceful resort to peaceful arbitration can be a breach of a treaty obligation while at the same time, resorting to the firing of water canons at unarmed Filipino subsistence fishermen as being in compliance with the said code of conduct.

One final point. Alunan said that the barring of Philippine bananas was because of the intiation of the arbitration proceedings. This is not the case. The resort to non-0-trade barriers against our bananas was an offshoot of our navy boat arresting Chinese fishermen in Panatag. Fortunately, while China can resort to this anew, it will not be as easy as it was in the past. This is because meanwhile, ASEAN and China entered into a bilateral investment agreement that grants protection to both our investments and export products. This means that it will be expensive for China to bar entry of any of our export commodities henceforth. This courtesy of the ASEAN Investment treaty with China.


source:  Manila Standard Column of Atty. Harry Roque Jr. | Mar. 27, 2014 at 12:01am

Centrist bloc backs PH in row with China

A bloc of more than 60 democracies around the world has backed the Philippines’ effort to settle its maritime dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) peacefully by submitting it to the United Nations for arbitration.

In a one-page resolution passed on March 19, the Brussels-based Centrist Democratic International (CDI) not only condemned in extraordinarily strong language “the forcible takeover and occupation of the Scarborough Islands (Panatag Shoal) in the [West Philippine Sea],” affirming that the territory is “possessed and occupied  by the Philippines as part of its continental shelf and within its exclusive economic zone,” but also urged China to “pursue  peaceful, lawful and internationally sanctioned rules on dispute resolution to remove rising tensions in the region.”

The CDI executive board unanimously approved the resolution at its annual meeting in Brussels after it was introduced by former Sen. Edgardo Angara, a member of the CDI executive council.

Angara described the resolution as “a positive response from the democratic world.” He said “more than 60 countries in the world (mainly Western democracies in Europe) wanted China to pursue its territorial claims according to the rule and principles of international law.”

Explaining the diplomatic implications of the resolution for the arbitration case lodged by the Philippines in the United Nations in January last year, Angara pointed out that “the UN [arbitration] tribunal is composed of all these nations [ruled by Centrist Democratic parties], and all these nations will be on our side.”

‘Positive, constructive’
“We’re always at the receiving end,” Angara said. “We react to what China [does] to us. For the first time, we have a positive, constructive international expression for our position.”

While the resolution echoes the Philippines’ position on its dispute with China over the Panatag Shoal, it went beyond decorous diplomatic language when it denounced China’s “unilateral, forcible and violent takeover” of the rich fishing ground in the West Philippine Sea.

The resolution called on other nations to register a similar objection, warning that history’s destructive wars began when democratic nations “stood silent in the face of unlawful occupations of other nations’ territories.”

It said “the world should remember the lessons of past occupations by condemning territorial encroachments wherever they occur.”

The resolution marked a rise in belligerent rhetorical exchanges between the Philippines and China since President Aquino, in an interview with The New York Times last month, called for global support for the Philippines in resisting Beijing’s assertive territorial claims in the South China Sea, drawing a parallel to Western democracies’ failure to support Czechoslovakia against Hitler’s demands for annexation of Czech lands in 1938, in a policy of appeasement that paved the way for the outbreak of World War II. 

The Chinese foreign ministry rejected the Munich analogy, claiming that it is the Philippines that’s occupying Chinese islands in the South China Sea. The Philippine government has vigorously rejected this interpretation of history.

Arbitration process
The rising animosity between Manila and Beijing comes as the UN arbitration tribunal prepares to open hearings on the Philippine petition at The Hague this month, seeking a judicial settlement of the dispute.
Even as the arbitration process is now under way, China refuses to submit to it and has kept paramilitary ships stationed in the disputed area, harassing Philippine fishing vessels.

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario fueled the debate over the Philippines’ bid for UN arbitrage intervention in the dispute with China in a keynote speech on Friday at the 2014 summit of the Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce on the theme “Asia’s Resurgence and America’s Role.”

Del Rosario said: “America has been a Pacific power for more than a century. In keeping with the adage that trade follows the flag, American business has also had long-term presence all over the Asia-Pacific region. … By extending its security to the Western Pacific by promoting freer trade and investment flows, and fostering the ideals of democracy and open societies, the US provided certainty and confidence for Asia’s continued advance. As conveyed by the US secretary of state, the US must continue building the regional and bilateral partnerships at the heart of a more stable, prosperous and democratic Asia so that the US  can continue to grow and prosper in the 21st century. …

“Our decades-long economic progress always rested on a broad consensus that countries would resolve their differences peacefully and pragmatically in pursuit of shared interests. This old consensus is now crumbling.

“The source of this pressure is largely [the] actions being taken by China to assert what it believes to be its rightful interests more forcefully in the region … . The perception is that China’s economic and military powers have combined with rising nationalism. This resulted in setting China on a very different and difficult course with many of its neighbors, and with the US as well.

“If this perception is valid, this will no doubt cast a shadow on China’s self-proclaimed ‘Peaceful Rise’ and will lead to the question, ‘Is China’s progress going to be at the expense of others?’ The Philippines certainly hopes not, but Beijing’s increasingly assertive behavior must be a cause of concern for everyone.

“What is clear is that Beijing has embarked on a determined course to change the status quo all along its coastline, from the East China Sea down to the South China Sea. Analysts interpret China’s assertive actions as part of its expansionist strategy, as demonstrated, for example, by its nine-dash claim to support its position of indisputable sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea.” (To be continued)

By Amando Doronila
Philippine Daily Inquirer

What did Estrada and Arroyo promise China?

China escalated its already heightened maritime conflict with the Philippines on March 9 by blocking two Philippine vessels from delivering fresh supplies and troops to its marine outpost in the sunken ship Sierra Madre beside the Ayungin Shoal. Two days later, when the Philippines summoned China’s Charge d’Affairs in Manila to protest China’s provocation, Beijing immediately countered that it was the Philippine ships that “infringed China’s territorial sovereignty.”

A week later, on March 17, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei revealed in a press conference in Beijing that two previous Philippine presidents had made an “unequivocal commitment to China” that the Philippines would tow away the Sierra Madre from the Ayungin Shoal. China demanded that Pres. Aquino “heed the promises” made by his predecessors otherwise, Hong Lei warned, the Philippines risks losing its “credibility.”

According to Hong Lei, the promises were made in 1999 by Pres. Joseph ”Erap” Estrada and reiterated in 2003 by Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). Estrada and Arroyo have yet to respond to this new Chinese allegation. Did they make such commitments to China? If so, why and what did they hope to get in return?

Many observers doubt this new Chinese claim because the Ayungin Shoal did not attain any strategic value to China until after GMA entered into a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China in 2005-2008 allowing China the authority to explore the waters within the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone boundaries of the Philippines around Palawan.

China’s exploration led to its discovery of the presence of large deposits of oil and natural gas in the area around the Recto Bank which is just 85 nautical miles from Palawan. The Ayungin Shoal is considered the “gateway” to the Recto Bank and China did not express any interest in occupying it until after the JMSU was entered into.

According to a Newsbreak report in 2008 (“Arroyo Gov’t Pleasing China since Day 1”), GMA “clinched the most number of bilateral agreements with China in the two countries’ 30-year relationship.” GMA signed 65 bilateral agreements with China, far surpassing the eight agreements signed by former President Ferdinand Marcos.

Could one of these agreements have included a promise to tow away the Sierra Madre off Ayungin Shoal and turn over all the Spratly Islands  to China?

In a special “Correspondents” documentary, Ricky Carangdang claimed that GMA sold the Spratlys to China. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd8MEsT5zfE.

Almost on the same day that China’s spokesman disclosed the Philippine presidential commitments to China, GMA’s former press secretary and spokesman, Rigoberto Tiglao, Jr., launched yet another scathing attack on Pres. Aquino in his column in the Manila Times.

In a previous column, Tiglao had berated Aquino as an “ignoramus” for comparing China’s moves to annex the islands and reefs in the West Philippine Sea to Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938.
In his latest column in the Manila Times (March 16, 2014), Tiglao attacked Pres. Aquino for his “ridiculous, belligerent stand in our dispute with China, represented by his juvenile slogan What’s ours is ours.”
In his column, “A more ‘nuanced’ approach to our China dispute,” Tiglao wrote: “In his clumsy effort to rouse our ‘patriotism’ against China, Aquino even declared two years ago, obviously confusing a shoal barely above the sea in an uninhabited area contested by several countries with a heavily populated street in the Republic’s capital: “We will defend Recto Bank as if it were Recto Avenue.”
Nowhere does Tiglao acknowledge that underneath that “shoal barely above the sea in an uninhabited area” lies what the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates to contain approximately 126 billion barrels of oil worth trillions of dollars along with 25.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Furthermore, contrary to what Tiglao wrote, that shoal is not “contested by several countries”; it is only contested by China – which seeks ownership over the entire 1.4 million square nautical miles of the South China Sea – and the Philippines.

What Tiglao is conflating is the dispute over the entire chain of the Spratly Islands consisting of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea. But the Philippines only claims 12 of those islands and reefs and doesn’t dispute Vietnam’s claim to those Spratly Islands within its 200 mile EEZ and neither does Vietnam claim ownership to those within the EEZ of the Philippines. Only China disputes the EEZ boundaries of its Asean neighbors.

Tiglao includes in his column the position paper of the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPeg), which, according to Tiglao, “explains lucidly the flaws in our government’s approach to our dispute with China.”

The CenPeg position paper essentially justifies “Chinese aggressiveness in asserting its claims over the disputed islands” because it “has been provoked by what it sees as an American containment policy towards the rise of China as a major power in the region.”

According to CenPeg, China’s “aggressiveness” will only be enhanced if the Philippines continues its “military alliance with the US such as the expansion of the so-called rotational presence of American troops and their increasingly uninhibited access to Philippine military facilities and resources.”

To appease China, the paper argues that the Philippines should abort its military alliance with the US. Tiglao would undoubtedly charge that only an “ignoramus” would compare this move to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy towards Hitler just before WWII.

While the CenPeg paper does not fault the government for its moves to modernize its military capabilities, it “decries (it)… if doing so is the most effective response to the current crisis.”
This is a straw man argument as no one is claiming that modernizing our military capabilities is “the most” effective response to the current crisis with China.

There are other effective responses that must also be undertaken. In his article, Rally to the Flag, written on July 28, 2012, Rafael Alunan III (former Ramos DILG Secretary) described the steps that must be undertaken to respond to the current crisis with China:

“Our preparedness has to be total as well: we need to “harden” our economic defenses by, for example, actively expanding our markets and trade partners; ensure our food and energy security; and industrialize to generate jobs that may be lost abroad. We need to forge unity by settling the civil wars that divide us; that means removing the root causes of our discontents to prevent its exploitation and our division. And we need to build a credible defense shield over the next 10 years, particularly our navy and air force, something we’ve neglected for decades.”

Tiglao and CenPeg support China’s position that the Philippines should reject UN and Asean intervention in arbitrating its dispute with China and instead states: “We believe that opening up bilateral talks with China is worth pursuing. The usual objection to this response is that we will always be on the losing side since we will be negotiating with a far more powerful state.”

That’s true but that’s not actually the “usual objection.” The Philippine government’s objection is that it had “patiently engaged Beijing in bilateral talks over the past 17 years; and at least 50 talks were held between parties since the April 2012 Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal standoff alone.” Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario even went to Beijing to have “bilateral talks” with China’s then Vice President, now President, Xi JinPing, about their Spratly Islands dispute.

Bilateral negotiations have always failed, according to the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, because “China insists on claiming indisputable sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea through its nine-dash-line claim.”

How can you negotiate with China when it insists at the very outset of negotiations that its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea is “indisputable”? What is there left to dispute? What is there left to negotiate…the times of the week when Filipino fishermen will be allowed to fish in China’s waters?
China is not the party to talk about sticking to commitments and losing credibility if one fails to do so. China should recall that in June of 2012, it made a commitment to withdraw its ships from the Scarborough Shoal if the Philippine Navy withdrew its ships as well, in a deal brokered by the US. When the Philippine ships left, China’s ships remained as China said it had never agreed in writing to leave.

The Filipino people must reject whatever commitments were made by Estrada and GMA to China.
(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).

source:   Inquirer

EDITORIAL - Territorial greed

(The Philippine Star) | Updated March 21, 2014

It must be good to wake up one day, look at the vast expanse of ocean around your land, and decide that all the waters as far as the eye can see are yours. That’s what Beijing is doing in the sea to its south that needs an official change of name because the country thinks if it’s named after China it must be owned by the Chinese.

A perfunctory look at any map prepared by international authorities and not by the Chinese will show that Beijing’s claim over nearly the entire South China Sea is preposterous and smacks of territorial greed. If Beijing could include the resource-rich Sulu Sea, where its fishermen poach any marine creatures they can lay their hands on including endangered species, within its so-called Nine-Dash Line it would do so.

China’s southern neighbors, which are left only enough space to lay claim to beach resort areas if the Chinese claim is valid, initially shrugged off the Nine-Dash Line. This was until Beijing decided it was time to use its new economic prosperity to flex its military muscles while at the same time claiming the world has nothing to fear with its “peaceful rise.”

In 1993, the Chinese pounced on Mischief or Panganiban Reef off Palawan, setting up huts that Beijing described as shelters for its fishermen. The “shelters” have since been transformed into concrete military barracks – the best example of creeping Chinese invasion of atolls and islands way beyond its 200-mile exclusive economic zone. If the Philippines or any other Southeast Asian country built such structures anywhere within the same distance from Chinese shores, it could spark a shooting war – but the Philippines considers territorial greed irresponsible behavior in the international community.
Ayungin Shoal, also well within the Philippines’ EEZ, is the latest target of China’s creeping invasion. Recently Chinese vessels shooed away a Philippine team bringing fresh supplies to troops stationed on an old Navy ship docked on the shoal. A note verbale from the Department of Foreign Affairs was rudely rejected by the Chinese embassy in Manila. The BRP Sierra Madre was docked on Ayungin in 1999 in response to China’s occupation of Panganiban Reef. The other day Beijing warned the Philippines of “consequences” if there is “further provocation” in Ayungin.

Manila must not be cowed. While pursuing peaceful means, through international arbitration, to establish the nation’s maritime entitlements, the Philippines must not make the same mistake that it did in Panganiban Reef. If we lay claim to territory, we must be prepared to defend the claim, and drive away intruders.

Vietnam warns vs use of force in sea dispute

Tokyo—Vietnam’s president on Tuesday warned against the use of force in territorial disputes as his nation and its neighbours lock horns with an increasingly assertive China over competing claims in the South China Sea.

President Truong Tan Sang made the comments in Japan’s parliament during a four-day visit.
“Vietnam has always maintained these principles over maritime dispute—resolution by peaceful means, compliance with international law, and respect for each other’s due rights and sovereignty,” the Vietnamese leader said.

“Countries concerned should not make the situation complex, but rather exercise self-restraint. They should neither use force nor threaten to use force.”

Sang did not make a direct reference to any particular country.

But Vietnam and three other members of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN—the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei—have opposed Beijing’s attempt to claim almost all of the South China Sea.

Sang said he hoped to strengthen ties with Japan, which is also embroiled in a separate and bitter territorial dispute with China.

Tokyo has called for stronger security ties with ASEAN members to try to ease the growing territorial tensions.

source:  Manila Standard

‘US help to Philippines Unclos-based’

THE commander of the USS Blue Ridge, a control and command ship of the US 7th Fleet, on Wednesday said the US would rely on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) as its benchmark in providing help to the Philippines.

“Once again the code of conduct... however it may turn out toward the efforts by all the Asean nations to try to reach agreement...especially as they are packaged in Unclos, that’s our benchmark,” the USS Blue Ridge commander, Cmdr.Robert Thomas, said.

Thomas was replying to a question on how the 7th Fleet could provide help to the Philippines in the ongoing dispute between the Philippines and China on the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

China claims practically the whole of the South China Sea, where the Philippines-claimed area has been renamed WPS.

World Affairs, an official publication of the American Peace Society, said as far as the “jurisprudence evidence” is concerned, the vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China’s claim to historic title over the South China Sea, implying full sovereign authority and consent for other states to transit, is invalid.

The Unclos provides that all the natural resources of a country’s continental shelf, extending 200 nautical miles, shall belong to that country.

The Blue Ridge is in Manila for a routine port call and four-day goodwill visit to highlight the strong historic, community and military alliance between the US and the Philippines.

It has 19 Filipino-American sailors onboard.

“We will continue to stand by our allies, we have five treaty alliances in this theater, over 60 years of alliance with the Philippines, not only in cultural perspective, but also shared interests.”

Thomas said the United States will continue to cooperate in international waters, continue to encourage freedom of access to all, encourage dialogue, encourage the rule of law.

source:  Business Mirror

Prepare for China

Prepare for China: Part I

I have Chinese blood. More than 200 years ago, a Chinaman married a native from Iloilo City. From that union, a whole clan was born – that that clan keeps growing and growing. I am not against the Chinese. How can I be when we have shared blood?

But I cannot say the same thing of the Chinese government. I have no blood ties with China the government, only with one Chinese native who came here to become Filipino by choice and be an ancestor to new Filipinos by blood. My clan, though, from that first union, has become predominantly Filipino by intermarriage with more Filipino natives than Chinese over the last two centuries.

I know, too, of many other families, of many other clans, who have absorbed Chinese blood among their members throughout history. After all, Chinese presence in the Philippines precedes Spain, Japan and America. If we are to trace the percentage of families with some Chinese blood in them, we might possibly be referring to the majority of Filipinos.

Patriotism and citizenship, though, may be blood-oriented but not blood-dependent.  By loyalty and my citizenship is Filipino, totally. My citizenship may have been affected by my birthplace and the citizenship of my parents, but my love of country and my loyalty to the Philippines are purely by choice, my choice.

From what I have experienced and observed all my life, most Filipinos are like me. As such, we have no doubt about our identity and about our loyalty. That is the way it should be if one is Filipino, even if one has Chinese blood, has American blood, has Spanish blood mixed with his or her Filipino blood. Or, even without Filipino blood, but by the laws of the Philippines and by the loyalty to this country, one can be a true Filipino as well.

In the last few years, a brewing conflict with China has disturbed us. It is not the first time, of course, as China had once openly chosen to support an internal rebellion in the Philippines. China chose to side with a communist-inspired domestic revolution against the Philippine government. While claiming to be about social justice, that rebellion under a communist ideology has failed to attract the marginalized, also representing the majority of Filipinos, for whom the revolution was supposed to be for.

The occupation of the United States was a sad period of our history, not because the American rule had not brought benefits, but because America chose to use force to impose its will on the Filipino people. Whatever good may have come out of that occupation, it will not erase the bitterness of betrayal, of brutal conquest, of teaching democracy through the ugliest undemocratic manner.
Today, though, 68 years after independence in 1946, Filipinos have a choice. We can choose to forgive America, Spain and Japan for their terrible transgression against Filipinos. We can also choose to forgive China for meddling in an internal conflict that has caused so much death, destruction, and division among the Filipino people.

If we are to utilize the many facets of our ties with China and America, China has a clear edge. We are fellow Asians. By blood, we have more fusion than any other race in the world. And economically, Chinese interests through their cheaper products and Chinese-blooded taipans control the Philippines. If there is competition between China and America for world dominance, China should use our shared history and blood to woo back the Filipino people if the American influence has become stronger.
Former Senator Leticia Shahani has recently written that the Filipino people should use a multi-dimensional approach in engaging China, that we should use our assets – food, language, intermarriage, the rise of taipans – to remind the Chinese (I assume she meant the Chinese government) of our long tradition of friendship, peace and tolerance between our peoples.

Our challenge, though, is not because we do not agree with Senator Shahani, but because we do. And despite all these, including tolerating the collusion between the thieves and plunderers serving in government here and the corruptors serving in the Chinese government and its corporations, China chooses to claim what is ours and takes a bullying role to grab Philippine territory.

Beyond cordoning Scarborough Shoal and preventing Filipino fishermen from partaking of the fruits of their patrimony, and doing this unilaterally from an arrogant military superiority, China has its eyes set on many other pearls of the Philippines. It is not only using belligerent language, it is also flexing its muscles. That is why it is called “bullying.”

In defense of its own sovereignty and all territory within the parameters that nations of the world observe, the Philippines is ultimately vulnerable to superior manpower volume and superior firepower. As a quick reaction, psychologically and militarily, the Philippines embraces the American forces in the region, hoping that these will be a strong buffer against more Chinese land-grabbing. Or possibly even invasion.

Dependence, whether to China or to America, is not to the interest of Filipinos. But Filipinos will take America anytime because their sentiments still prefer America today. China has not reached out except in three ways so far ever since independence in 1946. China supported the communist rebellion in the Philippines, exacerbating a domestic problem.  Chinese government owned or controlled corporations got involved with the thieves and plunderers of our government. Lastly, China claims territories we know are ours. How, then, can we recover the lost relationship of history?
What is left for us to do?

We have to prepare ourselves for any eventuality. We have to prepare our minds, our hearts, and our bodies. Conflict can escalate in a day from verbal to physical, and we have to prepare to fight and die, in the thousands, in the hundreds of thousands, in the millions.

Because we are Filipinos. Because we remember our ancestors who fought and died, against Spain, against America, against Japan. Because we wish no ill will against any nation but must not run away against ill will directed towards us. Because we are the children of the motherland, the only land in this planet that is meant for Filipinos.

Prepare for China: Part II

It may simply be a game for China. After all, who is the Philippines to fight back? Pushing us away from the sea, water-hosing our fishermen in Scarborough Shoal, blocking our supply ships at Second Thomas Shoal (Ayuningin Reef), China ups the ante in its bullying of the Philippines. And it seems that most Filipinos are not aware how close we are to war.

It is not unusual for war to begin with a single shot. The American Civil War started with a single shot from a mortar. History also says that a Serbian assassin shot an Austrian Archduke Ferdinand  and triggered World War I. It is not so much that shots were fired, but that they were fired when there was already tension between countries.

And there is tension now. I cannot speak of what is happening inside China but I can definitely speak about our own country. If the tension is not yet palpable, it is only because the Philippine government has deliberately held back from rousing public anger. The news of China’s bullying has been in the news but government has not pounced on the aggression of China to whip up an emotional storm among Filipinos. I can understand why our government chooses moderation, but the game is not up only to us and belongs more to the aggressor.

I do not want to be an alarmist, but I am alarmed. The state of unpreparedness, or naiveté, of the Filipino people will send them to absolute shock if a shot is fired, either by Filipino or Chinese soldiers. Panic is not the best stage from where we can mount our defense. Patriotism is better, and anger instead of fear.
 It might be advisable if government begins to roll out an information campaign via tri-media. Social media has been ahead of the game, so far, and will naturally pick up what government will publicly share. The tone of social media will be much more belligerent than the sobriety that government will expectedly display, but that is par for the course. Without some amount of heat, it will be hard to get through both ignorance and apathy.

While government through tri-media and the private sector through social media drive the information campaign on the bullying of China and the eventual need for Filipinos to defend its territory, the AFP Reserve Command can be placed on a higher state of readiness. Reaching out to the reservists can by itself be a strong information campaign because their families and their neighborhoods will get to know that something is brewing.

I can only assume that the reservists will respond with willing bravery to take on tasks that will prepare them for confronting China. It is not as though they will be sent to invade a country with so many times the number of soldiers and war equipment. But they can take positions in contested islands to signify that Filipinos are willing to defend our territory.

War against China will mean a massacre of Filipino soldiers. If China gets crazy mad, it can bomb and kill even Filipino civilians. After all, China can just declare it is now a 10 dash line to include not only Philippine waters and isolated islands but also Philippine mainlands. Who is to stop them from doing what a bully does from superior military strength anyway? Definitely, not the Philippines. The world of nations can, but not if Filipinos roll over and submit. Syria has lost over 100,000 of its own people to violent death and no one has intervened to physically stop the carnage. Soon, maybe, but not yet.

Filipinos must be the first defenders, the first to give up life and limb, before other nations will intervene. The first courage must be ours, the first sacrifice must be ours – no matter how many lives that takes. And we are not prepared to die in bravery, not when most Filipinos do not even realize how close they are to having to do so. That is why we must prepare, and prepare with a clear plan of action. Public awareness is first on the list. Activating the reservist comes next.

This early, too, it may be time to send a quiet message to Chinoys. Chinoys are Filipinos, just as Fil-Ams are Americans. Chinoys may have mixed emotions about going against China, and I cannot blame them for that. Sympathy for one’s original motherland is not wrong. But conflict and war between one’s country, and the Philippines is a Chinoy’s country, and one’s original motherland, China in this case, will force all Chinoys to unequivocally proclaim their absolute loyalty to the Philippines.
This is most unfortunate for Chinoys, but China’s bullying of the Philippines is even more unfortunate for all Filipinos. Many Filipinos have become citizens of many other countries. At least four million of them are citizens of the United States. Should conflict and war loom large between the Philippines and the United States, then Fil-Ams will find themselves forced to show their loyalty to their country of citizenship.

Chinoys have another situation. They control the wealth of the Philippines as gleaned from the latest list of the richest persons in the Philippines. As such, public attention and expectation will be focused on them and their actuation as conflict deepens due to China’s bullying. Loyalty is serious business, and becomes deadly so in times of war.

The United States? I cannot speak for this nation nor would I wish to speculate on what the United States would do in the face of our delicate position today. Will America risk all to defend the Philippines against a nation closest to having military parity with it? Will America be willing to commit its forces in the Pacific when it is in a quandary what to do to help the Ukraine against Russia?

Filipinos for the Philippines, the first path, and maybe the only path. Acceptance of this is the first preparation.

source:  Inquirer's Glimpses by Jose Ma. Montelibano

BFAR to assist Panatag fishermen

MANILA, Philippines - The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) will continue to assist fishermen recently barred by the Chinese from entering Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal in the West Philippine Sea.

BFAR director Asis Perez yesterday said they are laying out fish sanctuaries, locally known as payao, off the coast of Zambales to serve as an alternative fishing ground for local fishermen.

Last month, a Chinese coast guard ship used a water cannon to drive Filipino fishermen out of Panatag Shoal.

“While it is part of the protocol to use water cannons instead of live bullets, it’s unfortunate that this kind of incident happened. Panatag Shoal is ours and Filipino fishermen have the right to be there to fish,” Perez said.

He said that even before the incident, some 100 units of fish aggregating device have been distributed to fishermen in the area under the National Payao Program, which aims to help fishermen in various coastal provinces.

“The distribution of payao to fishermen (in Panatag Shoal) is still ongoing. Right now, we are determining how many more should be deployed,” he said.

A payao is used to maximize the catch of fishermen by making sure that only mature fish and not juvenile fish is caught.

The BFAR has not closed the area to fishing activities but advised fishermen to exercise caution.
Perez said fish supply would not be affected by the latest incident in the disputed waters as catch in the area comprises only a small portion of the aggregate domestic catch.

“That area (Panatag Shoal) is not a major production area so it will not significantly affect domestic fish supply,” he added.

Panatag Shoal is located 124 nautical miles from Zambales and 472 nautical miles from China’s coastal province of Hainan.

China has established a three-layered naval and maritime security around Panatag Shoal to make it difficult for Filipino fishermen to enter and fish in the area. – With Jaime Laude

source:  Philippine Star

US not a party to sea code – envoy

MANILA, Philippines - The United States is not a party to the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China will adopt, US Ambassador Philip Goldberg said yesterday.

But he said the US can be considered an interested party to the COC because of Washington’s interest in freedom of navigation in the region’s air and sea lanes.

“We are not a party to the COC and so it is up to the ASEAN countries along with China to resolve the issues involved. We are not a party to that particular process but we are an interested party because our interests are in freedom of navigation in the air and in the sea,” Goldberg told reporters after leading the opening of “America in 3D” roadshow presentation at the SM Mall of Asia.
Goldberg said the US is interested in the COC with China under a “rules-based solution,” without resorting to use of force.

“And so we very much hope that those kinds of rules-based solutions will be the ones that come to the fore so that we are able to see again those kinds of legal solutions, rules-based solutions,” he said.
Goldberg said the US wants to see legal and peaceful diplomatic solution to any issue related to the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

“So what we have been urging and the reason that we support the Philippines in its effort to bring certain matters before an international tribunal under international law is because we believe very much, very strongly, in a legal process to help determine and resolve dispute,” Goldberg said.
“So we are concerned naturally by anything that is not in that arena,” he said.

COC long overdue

The US has spoken out strongly on China’s unilateral measures. Washington does not recognize the actions undertaken by China such as the establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and the fishing law that it tried to put into effect.

“There are things not done in coordination with other countries of the region and that is why we believe that a Code of Conduct is an important part of way forward so the countries can discuss and resolve disputes,” Goldberg said.

Washington called for an “accelerated” negotiation process for a COC, saying the agreement is long overdue.

The US supports efforts, including those of the Philippines, to resolve disputes and overlapping claims through diplomacy and recognize international legal processes.
Malaysia also supported the Philippines on the peaceful settlement of the dispute through ASEAN solidarity.

Manila is pushing for the COC in the South China Sea to be approved and pushed by ASEAN as a group – meaning to include even non-claimants – for the sake of freedom of navigation, regional peace and stability.

Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said the Philippines’ case would be stronger if neighboring countries like Malaysia and Vietnam would join Manila in disputing China’s nine-dash line claiming the whole of the West Philippine Sea and South China Sea.

Firmly opposed

The Philippines protested on Tuesday the firing of water cannons at Filipino fishermen at the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, also called Bajo de Masinloc, last week and nine harassment incidents committed by Chinese authorities.

China rejected the Philippine protest, saying it has indisputable sovereignty over South China Sea islands and their adjacent waters.

The Philippines formally invited China in April 2012 to bring their claim to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) for a legal and lasting solution to the territorial dispute.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario said the Philippines is working with full resolve to submit the memorial for the arbitration case on March 30.

China, however, declared its position against resolving the issues before an international tribunal.
“With reference to the Philippines’ attempt of initiating arbitration proceeding against China regarding South China Sea dispute, China is firmly opposed to and will by no means accept that. This clear-cut position will not change,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang said on Friday. – With Aurea Calica

source:  Philippine Star

All up to claimants — PH

The Philippines is leaving the decision to all claimant countries whether or not they would join Manila in the arbitration case it filed against China over the disputed territories in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea).

Foreign Affairs Department spokesman Raul Hernandez said that the Philippines based its filing of the case challenging China’s nine-dash claim on its assessment of the country’s national interest.
“Other countries will also have to make a decision on this based on the assessment of their national interest and we will respect their decision on this,” he said.

Hernandez made the statement after Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza said on Thursday that it would help if other countries with their own territorial issues with China would file their own cases or make a formal request to join Manila’s case.

Aside from the Philippines and China, other claimant countries to the disputed territories are Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei Darrusalam.

The Philippines was given a deadline of March 30, 2014 to submit its arguments or Memorial to the United Nations-backed International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (Itlos) on its dispute with China.
The memorial will contain the legal basis of its arbitration case against China to be reviewed by the five-member arbitral tribunal at The Hague.

The Memorial is being prepared by the Philippines’ legal team headed by Jardeleza.
After its submission in March, the DFA said it is “open to future instructions coming from the arbitral tribunal” with regards to its next move.

The department expects the tribunal to decide on the jurisdiction and merits of the case, especially on why Manila wants the nine-dash line claim by Beijing invalidated and declared as cillegal as far as international law, particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), is concerned.
The Philippines invited China to join the arbitral proceedings on January 22 last year, but Beijing rejected the invitation.

Manila filed the arbitration case to ask the tribunal to clearly delineate the extent of China’s and the Philippines’ claims in the disputed region.

The Philippine government wants the five-member tribunal to invalidate Beijing’s “encompassing” nine-dash line claim, which covers 90 percent of the entire region and extending as far as the coastal provinces of the other claimant-countries.

Meanwhile, The Association of the Southeast Asian Nation (Asean) and China is set to meet on March 18 to hold the 10th Joint Working Group Meeting on the Implementation of the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

The meeting will be held in Singapore is expected to be attended by a representative from China and Asean bloc member-states Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying had said that Beijing is open to the formulation of the COC and is in constant communication with ASEAN countries.

“China is ready to work with ASEAN countries to maintain the hard-won momentum, carry on with the full and effective implementation of the DOC and actively press ahead with the consultation on the COC in a steady manner,” Hua said.

The framework of the COC is the Asean’s non-binding Declaration on the Code of Conduct which was signed in 2002.

Based on the Declaration Conduct, a non-binding document, all signatories are directed to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”

As this developed, United Kingdom Ambassador to the Philippines Asif Ahmad said that other countries are also waiting for the Itlos ruling on the case that Manila filed on South China Sea dispute.

Ahmad said that although he does does not want to speak on behalf of other countries, he said that the UK and other members of the international communities adopt the same stance over the dispute.

source:  Manila Standard