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

Territorial disputes

All throughout history, rival empires have fought over boundaries to define ownership of certain territories and thereby acquire control of resources. But while the Philippines is engaged in a maritime dispute with China, we also have a territorial dispute within our own shores with Makati, Taguig and now Pateros engaged in a legal battle for Bonifacio Global City in Fort Bonifacio including Pitogo and the eight “embo” barangays (Cembo, Comembo, etc).

Pateros Mayor Jaime Medina cites historical records dating back to the 18th century placing Pateros under Pasig, until the issuance of a Spanish decree in 1770 giving Pateros independence with territories that include Barrio Mamancat where Fort Bonifacio and the “embo” barangays were located. Taguig on the other hand acquired dominion of the disputed areas through Executive Order No. 40 that gave the Bases Conversion Development Authority jurisdiction of 240 hectares of Fort Bonifacio which had Taguig as location. Meantime, Makati says Fort Bonifacio has always been under its jurisdiction since Spanish times, also citing legal basis such as Presidential Proclamations 2475 and 518 that transferred parts of Fort Bonifacio to Makati, as well as census data from 1948 to 1980 charting the said areas under Makati.

Cases were filed by the contending parties, with a Makati Regional Trial Court initially ruling for Taguig but was recently overturned by a Court of Appeals decision ordering Taguig to “immediately cease and desist from exercising jurisdiction… and return the same to Makati…”

Taguig is not ready to throw in the towel and neither is Pateros — with both saying the CA ruling is appealable and therefore not final.

Mayor Junjun Binay has given notice that the local government of Makati will have its presence felt soon with the deployment of personnel who would be implementing the laws of Makati. But Binay is willing to discuss revenue sharing with Taguig – understanding that the latter’s status as a city could be affected given the potential reduction not only in revenue but in land area. 

Some are saying it might be a good idea to put Metro Manila under a central authority to consolidate the efforts of all local units under a governor who will have the requisite political clout and power over legislative issues and other concerns like traffic, squatter relocation as well as disaster risk reduction programs. A case in point is the number coding scheme with some cities refusing to follow the MMDA’s window hours provision while others have no coding scheme at all, proponents say.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

In any case, this internal territorial dispute will most likely go on for a few more years but no doubt it will come to a definitive conclusion either by arbitration or through a final decision from the Supreme Court. In which case, all arguments should be resolved.

Unfortunately, it seems the same could not be said regarding our decades-long territorial dispute with China that continues to fester. Observers say both countries are raising the stakes, with the Philippines deciding to elevate the issue to an international tribunal, moving to enhance the country’s minimum credible defense posture as it welcomed the arrival of a second Hamilton class cutter and announced intentions to allow the increased rotational presence of US troops.

On the other hand, China is ratcheting up its claims by employing what experts describe as a  “salami-slicing” strategy using step-by-step “small actions” that are gradually giving them control in contested boundaries like what they did to the Aksai Chin plateau in the 1960s, the Paracels in 1974, the Johnson Reef in 1988, Mischief Reef in 1995 and the Scarborough Shoal last year.

While the Taguig-Makati-Pateros dispute will likely end with a Supreme Court ruling, this doesn’t seem likely with the territorial dispute involving China which refuses to submit to arbitration, claiming ownership through ancient historical data and the so-called map of the nine-dash line enclosing almost 80 percent of the whole South China Sea — something the Philippines seeks to nullify before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Ancient cartographic sketches are not exactly the most precise references for boundaries and the rendition of old maps have evolved all these years. In which case, the world as we know it today may not exactly be accurate as far as current geographical boundaries are concerned. It may well be that the real owners of all disputed territories — from Asia to Africa to Europe — are the descendants of dinosaurs who ruled the planet for ages.

Obviously, emotions are running high considering the stakes involved. But meantime, the Chinese and Filipinos can probably channel their repressed antagonism by fighting it out in a physical albeit less dangerous game like basketball, like what’s happening now with the FIBA Asia championship that Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas president Manny Pangilinan had worked so hard for to bring to the Philippines.

According to sources, the price tag for hosting the biggest basketball tournament in Asia is a hefty P70 million — but it’s a small price to pay to remind Filipinos that we can be a powerhouse in Asia as far as basketball is concerned, recalling the time when the Philippine team became FIBA Asia champion 27 years ago. MVP is bankrolling Gilas Pilipinas, and judging from the feverish response, it would seem that Filipinos are banking on the team to prove that the Philippines has a chance at beating China — if not in the military front then at least in a basketball court.

But levity aside, the court of law should be the final arbiter of territorial disputes whether local or international – something that civilized and self-respecting individuals and nations should learn to recognize and adhere to.

*      *      *

Email: babeseyeview@yahoo.com

source:
BABE’S EYE VIEW By Babe Romualdez (The Philippine Star)

Japan PM vows to help Philippines amid China row

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged to strengthen the Philippines' maritime defence capabilities on Saturday, while reassuring neighbours about Tokyo's intentions amid growing territorial disputes with regional rival China.

"For Japan, the Philippines is a strategic partner with whom we share fundamental values and many strategic interests," Abe told a joint news conference with Philippine president Benigno Aquino after their meeting in Manila.

Speaking through an interpreter, Abe said his visit was intended "to strengthen the relations with the Philippines in all areas", including politics, security, and the economy.

As part of Japan's commitment, Abe said there would be "continued assistance to the capacity-building of the Philippine coastguard".

As an example of this, he cited 10 patrol boats that Japan is providing to the poorly-equipped Philippine coast guard.

The Filipino coastguard and navy have been at the forefront of tense encounters with navy and maritime surveillance vessels from China, which claims most of the South China Sea including areas close to the Filipino coast.

China seized the Scarborough Shoal, a South China Sea outcrop just 230 kilometres (140 miles) east of the main Philippine island of Luzon, last year after Manila backed down from a lengthy stand-off.

This year the Philippines has complained about the presence of Chinese navy vessels near Filipino-held Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly islands.

Japan earlier this year announced it would make loans to the Philippines to purchase the 10 Japanese patrol vessels for its coastguard.

"The Prime Minister and I agreed to strengthen maritime cooperation which is a pillar of our strategic partnership," Aquino said Saturday.

Abe's visit came as tensions have also steadily risen between China and Japan over Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea.

He reiterated a call for a leaders' summit with China to discuss their territorial dispute, and assured the rest of Asia that his vision for a more robust Japanese armed forces would not threaten the region's peace and security.

Abe said Saturday his party's decisive victory in the upper house of the Japanese parliament would help him pursue his vision of Tokyo's role in the region, many parts of which were under brutal Japanese occupation in World War II.

"Against this backdrop I intend to further proceed with strategic diplomacy which will contribute to regional and global peace and security," he said.

Abe has pledged to loosen limits on the military in Japan's pacifist, post-war constitution and stand up to China over their East China Sea dispute.

He acknowledged at a separate news conference, after he appeared with Aquino, that a more assertive Japanese military was a sensitive issue in the region.

"I intend to explain politely so that the countries in the region will not have any misunderstanding," he said.
Abe said problems with China were "inevitable" being neighbours, but stressed that peaceful coexistence between the two regional powers was crucial for Asian peace and prosperity.

"It is important that we have frank and candid discussions. I have given instructions so that the foreign affairs authorities (can) proceed with dialogue without any conditions attached. Foreign ministers-level and leaders-level meetings should be promptly held."

As Abe and Aquino met at the presidential palace, about 80 protesters including elderly ladies who said they were former comfort women staged a rally nearby, holding signs demanding reparations from Japan.

source:  Yahoo! and AFP

Biden to address maritime disputes ‘head on’ in Asia Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/81029/biden-to-address-maritime-disputes-head-on-in-asia#ixzz2Zfa8skXC Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

WASHINGTON—US Vice President Joe Biden on Monday begins a week-long visit to India and Singapore where officials say he will tackle tensions over the disputed West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) “head on.”

The trip allows the White House to reassert its commitment to a strategic pivot to Asia, with Biden to discuss growing economic cooperation with the region as well as geo-political hot topics such as Afghanistan.
Notably it provides President Barack Obama’s number two a chance to confer with regional leaders on how to manage overlapping maritime claims in the West Philippine Sea — a flashpoint for the past decade.
China claims virtually all of the body of water, drawing accusations from rival claimants the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, that it is mounting a creeping takeover of disputed islets.

Biden and the Obama administration are “concerned about certain patterns of activity that have unfolded in these areas, and so I think you can expect that he will address this issue head-on while he is there,” a senior administration official said Friday.

While in Singapore, Biden will talk with leaders about Washington’s “very deep stake in making sure that these disputes are managed in a way that promotes freedom of navigation, promotes stability, promotes conflict resolution, avoids intimidation and coercion and aggression.”

Biden first travels to New Delhi, where he is scheduled to meet top leaders including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pranab Mukherjee.

On Wednesday Biden gives a policy speech at the Bombay Stock Exchange and holds a roundtable with business leaders, where he will press for stronger intellectual property protection and highlight growing trade between the world’s two largest democracies.

Bilateral trade has surged to nearly $100 billion per year, “but there is no reason it can’t be five times that much,” the administration official said.

Immigration reform currently under debate in the US Congress is of interest in India, where skilled graduates could stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of a planned overhaul that would triple the number of visas allotted to highly-skilled workers.

Biden’s trip follows Obama’s nomination of Nisha Desai Biswal as assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, the first time an Indian American would head the bureau which oversees US foreign policy with Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.

India is not party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal being negotiated by 12 nations and which Biden says he hopes will be completed this year.

But Singapore is a TPP participant, and Biden travels there Thursday. He is due to meet the city-state’s leadership as well as its founding founder Lee Kuan Yew.

 

source:  Philippine Daily Inquirer

Feeling the heat

The way the Chinese are ranting, they must be all riled up with recent adverse developments.
In their distorted perception, Chinese officials accused the Philippines of being “a troublemaker and unsettling the stability of the region.”

The Philippines incurred China’s ire by posing the most serious challenge to Beijing’s excessive claim over the entire South China Sea when Manila elevated to international arbitration its sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea in accordance with the United Nations Law of the Sea. UNCLOS gives nations with coast lines a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

Beijing must be feeling the heat. It stepped up its propaganda attack after the panel of judges in the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea announced it would start hearing Manila’s case without or without China’s participation.

Earlier, China received a rebuke when US President Barack Obama warned an official Chinese delegation against the use of coercion and intimidation in maritime disputes during two days of wide-ranging talks in Washington.

Much earlier, State Department officials and the Commanding Admiral of the US Naval Forces in the Pacific conveyed the same message. But this time, it was the US commander in chief himself talking.

Apart from US interest to keep navigational lanes in the South China Sea open, one can assume the Obama statement and the ITLOS action was driven by world opinion against China’s aggressive moves in the region.
While there is a school of thought who contend there is no such thing as a world opinion, China is mindful of what the international community says about it.

Chito Santaromana, who spent 30 years in China as an exile from the Marcos regime and later as Beijing bureau chief of the American Broadcasting Company TV network , said it is important to the Chinese not to lose face.

Despite their inscrutable countenance, the Chinese are affected by world opinion judging by their strong statements against the Philippines which makes them look like the villain.

China knows world opinion can sway the United Nations to action. Although the UN does not speak in one voice, and often dissonant, it is still able to carry out its mandate through its related agencies in acting against tyranny, aggression and crimes against humanity.

The world is watching how far China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, can and will go in its calibrated aggression in maritime disputes with Japan and the Philippines remains to be seen.
China occupied Tibet but has taken its time with “renegade province” Taiwan. Beijing knows Taiwan is armed to the teeth and has full US backing, The Mainland leadership no longer threatens to launch an invasion across the Straits of Formosa.

Japan won’t be bullied on the Senkaku Island territorial row. Threatened by an aggressive China, Japan’s political leaders plan to amend its pacifist constitution so it can rearm.

Meanwhile, we have yet to hear our politicians speak out on the Chinese threat. Instead, they are more concern on the possible violation of the Constitution over giving our allies access to Subic naval base.
With billions in pork barrel funds lost to a scam syndicate, the President should really abolish the practice of allocating money to senators and congressmen’s pet projects.

Why not use the PDAF appropriation to beef up the military?

Incoming Senate President Franklin Drilon expressed the view it does not require legislation to abolish the graft-ridden pork barrel. It’s really President Aquino’s call.

Waging war with China is a no- brainer. But bolstering our self-defense capability and spending for the nation’s security should be paramount in our leaders’ agenda.

source:  Manila Standard today's Column of Alejandro Del Rosario

Toward a Philippine defense policy that works

Second of Three Parts
With President Benigno Aquino 3rd’s policy of allowing massive deployment of the American military and perhaps the Japanese as well, China will not only undertake adverse economic, diplomatic and security measures against the Philippines. As explained in the first part of this article, PNoy is provoking the People’s Liberation Army to build up PLA capabilities and firepower in the area.

Thus, the very policies intended to secure the Philippines and its claimed islands, waters and economic zones, will actually further endanger them and extend the threats to the entire archipelago as well as the economy and the nation’s global standing.

But guess what: increasing Chinese military, economic and international pressure on the Philippines is exactly what would serve Washington’s long-advocated initiative to create a “regional architecture” addressing international issues in Asia, and to increase its military presence in the region, including the planned shift to the region of 60 percent of American naval forces, while enhancing alliances and building new ones.

As the PLA expands in the South China Sea to match the U.S. Seventh Fleet and the Japanese Navy rotating in and near the Philippines with access to its bases, the Chinese deployment would underscore even more the aggressor role in which Beijing has been cast in recent years. And the more it uses its economic and geopolitical clout against helpless Manila, the more the bully label sticks.

That would only add greater impetus and justification for Washington’s so-called Pivot to Asia, including its push for military buildup, alliances and regional arrangements to counter the supposed threat of Chinese regional dominance. If Asian nations buy that geopolitical line, then Washington would be on its way to regaining its regional clout while trimming Beijing’s expanding influence.

What a scheme: Aquino lets Washington and Tokyo expand their military presence in and around the Philippines, which then provokes Beijing to punish Manila and build up its forces in the South China Sea—lending credence to the U.S. spiel that Asian nations must line up with it to contain Chinese aggression.
Will Asians fall for it? Not if they have a good grasp of history. Then they would recall that after the early 1991 Soviet collapse, the U.S. stopped wooing Asia after its global rivalry with the defunct U.S.S.R. ended. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in America rekindled its interest and involvement in the region, but mainly to combat violent extremists. Only belatedly and with much prodding from Washington policy wonks did the U.S. scramble to regain clout in the region as it woke up to China’s rapid rise and the coming shift of the world’s economic and geopolitical center to Asia.

By comparison, since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms in the mid-seventies, China has proved a reliable and supportive friend to its neighbors, especially the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It cut ties with communist rebels in Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, and backed Asean in opposing Vietnam’s 1978 invasion of Cambodia, even waging a brief punitive war against its fellow communist state.

During the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the West lectured and imposed crushing bailout conditions on the region, epitomized by then International Monetary Fund Managing Director Michel Camdessus looking down on then Indonesian President Suharto signing rescue loan terms. China, by contrast, quietly helped out by not devaluing its renminbi.

And in the past decade, it boosted trade and investment in Asean, outstripping most nations in new capital and commerce, especially after the U.S. financial crisis of 2007.

Those with even longer memories can look back on past centuries and see that unlike Western colonizers and their Japanese imitators, China never invaded and occupied faraway lands and peoples, even when it sent what was the world’s most powerful navy to Asia and Africa early in the 15th Century, with vessels several times the size of Christopher Columbus’s ships during his voyage to America decades later in 1492.

The United States, on the other hand, waged a brutal war to subjugate the Philippines, Asia’s first republic, in 1900, and fought five major conflicts in Asia since 1950—in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, and two in Iraq. Plus even more interventions in the Western Hemisphere, from invasion in Cuba and Nicaragua to subversion in Guatemala and Chile.

Washington’s big-power ways continue today with its campaign pressuring governments to hand over cyber-surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden.

All that makes it hard for most Asian nations to swallow the line that China is an aggressor against which the region should unite under American protection. Nor are they going to sacrifice burgeoning trade and investment ties with the region’s main economic growth engine by becoming its adversaries.
Rather, most of Asia will follow what has been Asean’s longstanding policy of being friends with all major powers, as envisioned in its 1971 Declaration promoting a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in Southeast Asia. Big nations will always be competing for influence and clout; little ones should generally avoid taking sides and getting caught in the crossfire.

That should be one key principle in addressing the Philippines’ security problems with China: Restore the warm but equidistant relations the country has had with America, China and Japan for at least the past decade. Two other tenets toward true national security: Downplay disputes and undertake confidence-boosting collaboration. And lastly, build up Philippine defense capabilities, rather than depending on other nations.

For space reasons, this article will need to extend to a third part on Friday outlining a roadmap toward regional harmony and Philippine national security. The way forward won’t be easy, but it can work.
(The first part of the article appeared on Monday. The last will be published on Friday.)

source:  Manila Times' Column of by Ricardo Saludo

Japan wary of 'coercive' China

AFP News/Japan Coast Guard - A Chinese marine surveillance ship (R) alongside a Japan Coast Guard vessel near disputed islets on February 4, 2013. China's "coercive" behaviour in the waters around the land mass could trigger an incident, Tokyo said in a new defence paper

China's "coercive" behaviour in waters around islands at the centre of a bitter dispute with Japan is dangerous and could trigger an incident, Tokyo said in a new defence paper Tuesday.

At a cabinet meeting, hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ministers adopted the white paper, the first annual report on Japan's defence capabilities and regional security since the islands dispute flared anew last year.

Tokyo nationalised three of the five Senkaku islands in September. Beijing lays claim to the islands, and calls them the Diaoyus.

"China... has taken action described as coercive, which includes risky behaviour," the 450-page report said.

"China's activities include its intrusion into Japan's territorial waters, its violation of Japan's territorial airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency," it said.

In particular, the paper said a Chinese frigate locked weapons-targeting radar on a Japanese destroyer in January -- a claim Beijing has denied.

"These acts are extremely regrettable and China should accept and stick to the international norms," it said.
Chinese and Japanese ships have for months traded warnings over intrusions into what both governments regard as their sovereign areas around the islands, which are strategically sited and rich in resources.

Chinese government ships have regularly sailed into the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of the islands, where they are confronted by Japan's well-equipped coastguard.

The most recent incident was Sunday.

Masayoshi Tatsumi, press secretary at Japan's defence ministry, said the ministry was stepping up efforts to boost cooperation between the armed forces and coastguard in patrolling Japanese waters.

"We are taking all possible measures to maintain full readiness toward issues surrounding our country by using aircraft and other equipment in a flexible manner," Tatsumi said.

Japanese fighters were scrambled more than 300 times against Chinese planes flying near Japan's airspace for the year to March, a new record, the paper said.

Beijing's foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the white paper "makes some unfounded accusations against China".

"Recently Japan has often played up the so-called China threat and unilaterally caused tensions and confrontations," she said.

"Given that some political forces and politicians in Japan clamour for war preparations, military build-up and frequent military exercises, the international community cannot but be worried about where Japan is heading."
Japan has officially been pacifist since World War II but has 140,000 troops, 140 military ships and 410 aircraft as part of its "self-defence forces". It raised its military budget by 0.8 percent for the year to March, the first annual gain in 11 years, citing the need to boost island defences.

The defence paper also stressed the need to enhance the country's alliance with the United States in the face of China's increasingly assertive behaviour.

Ties with Washington had been strained under Japan's previous centre-left government, which pushed for the relocation of US bases in Okinawa. But under the conservative Abe, Japan has adopted a more nationalistic tone, to Beijing's concern.

Commentators say the disputed islands are a potential flashpoint for a possible military confrontation between Asia's two largest powers.

"Senkaku is strategically important for Japan, China and Taiwan," said Takehiko Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Waseda University in Tokyo.

Taiwan also claims the islands.

"Japan may need to work together with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries to jointly bring China to an arena of dialogue, but it will take some time," Yamamoto said.

Several members of ASEAN are also at loggerheads with China over separate territorial disputes in the South China Sea, which contains some of the world's most important shipping lanes and is believed to be rich in fossil fuels.

ASEAN has been pushing a reluctant China for talks on a set of rules governing conduct at sea meant to avert unilateral actions that could spark trouble.

At annual Asia-Pacific security talks a week ago, the Philippines warned that China was engaging in a military buildup at sea that threatened regional peace. China agreed at the talks to begin discussing a code of conduct with ASEAN.

The white paper is an assessment and summary of Japan's thinking on defence matters and is intended as an effort at transparency aimed at both the public and at neighbouring countires.

A policy paper that will discuss specifics on deployment of forces is expected later in the year.

source: Yahoo!

People to people

There is something amiss about the way we conduct our foreign policy especially as it refers to the South China Sea conflict. It seems that we have boxed ourselves into a position where diplomacy has become more and more difficult. The recent “testy exchange” between Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario is a good example of how personalities come in the way of finding solutions for the benefit of the peoples of their respective countries.

It is in this light that this column suggests a think tank that includes a wide variety of personalities (not created by the government but a private initiative) to enable ordinary people, especially the fishermen who are most affected by the South China Sea conflict to have their say.

Why should something as important as the source of livelihood be left to officials who never have to scramble for food everyday? To them the sea, whatever it is called and whoever claims ownership, is where they get their daily food.

It is time that ordinary people step in and have their say. By doing so they create a wider atmosphere more conducive to explore alternative approaches beyond “testy exchanges.’  It is clear that we cannot rely mainly on high government officials. After all, they are only human and would not be immune to flares of tempers. Imagine the thousands who will be affected if an official did not wake up on the right side of the bed. That happens.

*       *       *

In a supposedly free and democratic country like the Philippines media is just as controlled with news on the South China conflict concentrating on news that generate a war frenzy. That was the reason for the “testy exchange” and then probably regretting a breach of polite diplomacy, Secretary del Rosario invited his Chinese counterpart to come and visit for talks. (At which it was disputed whether it should be called negotiations or consultation).

Vietnam is closest to the Philippines insofar as the disputed claims on the South China is concerned and for a while went along with Philippine initiatives. But that changed when Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang visited China.

The Vietnamese have come up with an alternative approach leaving the Philippines behind in what is looking more and more like a stalemate. The Vietnamese have moved forward, never mind what it has said in the past for the sake of the development of their country through cooperation with China.
I have some Vietnamese friends who tell me that even before their President’s visit to China, there were already private initiatives to look for alternative approaches. This is a wise move and does not necessarily come in the way of what its government or indeed the Chinese positions on the claims.

*      *      *

I was surprised but welcomed a request from the prestigious Guang Ming Daily that they wished to reprint in Chinese my column “A visit between friends” that talked on the new approach between Vietnam and China about the South China Sea conflict. Why not? But it had to be translated in Chinese so that Chinese readers would appreciate that there was room for peace not war. If the Vietnamese can do it, so can Filipinos.

Chinese businessmen who might have wanted to invest in projects in the Philippines, reading only mainstream media have shied away from doing business here. We have to get to them to discourage this kind of thinking that all Filipinos are against the Chinese and threats that they should be careful because we have the Americans on our side that the Americans in any case promptly denied.  That puts us in limbo.

A think tank would be an ideal vehicle to take in as many views as possible including the real stakeholders ie the fishermen would be a good thing.

Most of us know only about TIME and Newsweek and of course the CNN and BBC. Whoever heard of Guang Ming Daily? Yet it has millions of readers.

According to Wikipedia the “Guangming Daily is an influential newspaper in China in the fields of science and technology, education and culture. It possesses a large readership and enjoys high prestige amongst state agencies, universities and schools, the armed forces and in intellectual circles.

As a newspaper with a long history in China, the Guangming Daily enjoys a high reputation among the media. Over years of development, the Guangming Daily has grown into a large-scale newspaper group that runs other three newspapers, four periodicals, a website and a publishing house. Also printed in the cities of Shenyang, Shanghai, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Xi’an, Lanzhou, Chengdu and Kunming, all copies of the Guangming Daily circulated in Beijing are offset laser printed. The Guangming Daily has correspondents resident in many countries worldwide and has a global circulation although it is written in Chinese.”
Below is the connection to the story in Chinese and how it looks in the newspaper: http://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2013-07/01/nbs.D110000gmrb_08.htm


FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 6, 2013 -

PH-China disputes ‘temporary setback’

Cultural, economic ties between the two nations are stronger than their political differences
NANNING, China—Although complicated, the fueling tensions over the disputed maritime territories between China and the Philippines are seen to be just a temporary obstacle to the economic growth and cooperation of both countries, a Chinese professor said.

Prof. Hu Jianghua from Guangxi University of Finance and Economics in Nanning, China told Filipino reporters that the ongoing territorial row between the two countries is just a short-term impediment to the economic partnership that the two countries are trying to forge.

“Both the Chinese businessmen and Filipino businessmen, they are focused. Their attention is to put on the presence of common interest and business profit,” Hu said through a translator. “So I think that the political problem should not be the obstacle to our fundamental economic interest.”

Hu explained that “business is business”—despite the feud over the disputed waters, the Philippines and China will continue to have sound economic and trade relations, which is more important for both countries.
Based on the data by the Department of Trade and Industry, China is the Philippines’ second largest source of imports and third largest export destination. Philippine exports to China, meanwhile, increased by 11 percent in 2010 from 2000, according to research director Dr. Dan Steinbock.

In a report by Philexport, Chinese projects in the Philippines grew by 63.2 percent or $1.02 billion in 2012.

The professor made the remarks in one of the lectures at the two-week Economic and Trade seminar for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Journalists held last June 18 to 30 in Nanning. The assembly was organized by the China-Asean Expo secretariat and sponsored by China’s Ministry of Commerce.

Stronger cooperation
With the rapid economic growth that China and Southeast Asia demonstrated in the past few years, Hu explained that it is imperative for the region to build stronger bilateral economic and trade cooperation for a more permanent and lasting progress.

“The political issues are the effect to some extent of the bilateral economic cooperation but the focus of attention of the businessmen of China and the Philippines are focused on the pursuit of the common interest,” he said.

“Also, there are expectations for the government of both sides to solve the critical issues and problems and create more favorable business environment for them.”

So far, the maritime territorial dispute has no direct effect yet on the economic relations between the two countries, except when China imposed restriction on the importation of Philippine bananas last year after the Scarborough Shoal standoff erupted. China then claimed that the banana shipments were infested with bugs.

The restriction has eased, though, as Chinese quarantine officials informed the Philippines that the quality of bananas has improved. To date, China remains as the third biggest importer of Cavendish bananas, next to Japan and South Korea.

Good shape
The economic exchanges between China and the Philippines is in relatively good shape. Ministry of Commerce Department of Asian Affairs Director Li An said in one of the lectures during the same seminar that the bilateral trade between the two countries are increasing.

“The political relationship between the countries is not very good,” he said. “But from the point of view of trade and economic cooperation, I believe in recent years, the bilateral cooperation has been fairly increasing. The figures concerning the bilateral trade have been great.”

In fact, the Philippines is one of China’s major foreign direct investments (FDI) source among the Asean countries next to Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. The Philippines’ FDI in China was recorded at $130 million in 2012.

However, Li said that the Philippine government should exert more efforts to attract more Chinese investors to the country. According to the DTI, Chinese investments in the country last year only reached $65.45 million, which is about half of the Philippines’ FDI in China.

According to Li, there have been no considerable investments made by Chinese investors in the Philippines compared to other Asean countries since 2005. Most of China’s FDI is concentrated in Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos.

Just recently, DTI Secretary Gregory L. Domingo urged Chinese businessmen to invest in the Philippines.

“Since China has more money than the Philippines, we hope that Chinese will invest more in the Philippines,” he said during a Philippine-China business forum in April.

Challenge
Besides China and the Philippines, there are four other countries claiming parts of the West Philippine Sea (referred to as the South China Sea by China). These are Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan.

The maritime territory is a home for the world’s biggest coral reefs and hundreds of species of fish and marine animals. It is also believed to contain unexploited reserves of oil and natural gas.

Hu noted that both governments should appropriately handle territorial disputes by strengthening dialogues and maintaining consultations on political issues as this is vital to promote peace and stability in the region.

Other entities like non-government organizations can also play a role in building relationships between Chinese and Filipino investors.

The suggestion is easier said than done, though, as the conflict has become tougher and tougher. Since tensions broke out last year, China has strengthened security around the area it claims while the Philippines recently launched military exercises around the area together with U.S. forces.

Add to that the “testy exchanges” that Philippine Foreign Affairs Sec. Albert del Rosario and his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, engaged in last week during the Asean Foreign Ministers’ Meeting held in Brunei.
Now, it is a tough challenge for both parties—who are bound by their long historical and cultural relations—to ease the tension for a more strategic and long-lasting cooperation.

source:  Manila Times

Del Rosario pushes talks on sea issue with China

Foreign Affairs Department Secretary Albert Del Rosario on Thursday said he has invited China Foreign Minister Wang Yi to visit Manila for a “full and constructive discussion on all issues” on the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
Del Rosario said that since he was appointed as Foreign Affairs chief in 2011, he has had no official visit from a Chinese Foreign Minister.

The invitation was made amid the country’s ongoing political conflict on territorial claims with Beijing and came on the heels of the reported “testy exchanges” between the two envoys during the 46th Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum held in Brunei.

“I indicated to him that perhaps, it’s timely for him to do this because I have been to Beijing three times since I became foreign minister [in 2011] and all throughout that time, we had no visit from a Chinese foreign minister,” he said.

When asked how Wang reacted to the invitation, Del Rosario said the Chinese envoy said that “he would think about it and will consider.”

During the 46th Asean Regional Forum in Bandar Seri Bagawan, Wang and Del Rosario reportedly had a “testy” conversation after the Chinese envoy accused the Philippines of making aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea.

Del Rosario reportedly raised his hand to answer Wang’s accusations even if he was not supposed to respond to the Chinese envoy’s remarks.

The DFA chief did not deny the report, but refused to make any further comment on the incident.

“I will not deny what has been reported, but I feel there’s no need to add to it,” he said.

Del Rosario said that China has agreed to hold “consultations and not “negotiations”, in Beijing in September to discuss the “full and effective implementation of the DOC [Declaration on the Code of Conduct].”

In all, China and ASEAN’s top envoys are scheduled to have three meetings this year:  the first among ASEAN member-countries in Thailand; the second among ASEAN members and China in August and another ‘consultation’ meeting in September.

Thailand called for the first meeting to prepare the Asean for the August and September meeting in China.
“Our hope is that we can have a discussion on a way forward on the COC [Code of Conduct],” Del Rosario said.

The DFA chief added that he hopes that Beijing was sincere in starting consultations on the draft of a maritime code of conduct based on the non-binding but confidence-building DOC that was signed in 2002 by China and the Asean.

In the past, Beijing had repeatedly refused to agree on multilateral negotiations on the territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea.

China had instead pushed for bilateral talks between China and claimant-countries, such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan.

Vietnam and the Philippines had been the most vocal in criticizing China’s aggressive stance over the oil-rich territory.

Recently, however, Beijing and Hanoi had agreed to explore and share the resources on their disputed territories. Both countries even set up a hotline that would help prevent tensions between their fishermen.
The Philippines, on the other hand, still has a pending case against China before the arbitral tribunal under the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, but Beijing had rejected Manila’s decision to “internationalize” the issue.

Also yesterday, the DFA announced that the BRP Alcaraz, the second of two Hamilton-class cutters the Philippine government purchased from the United States, is slated to arrive on August 3.

The BRP Alcaraz (PF-16), and the BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15), which arrived in Philippine shores in August 2011, were acquired by the Philippines under the Excess Defense Article and Military Assistance Program.

The Alcaraz is named after Commodore Ramon Alcaraz, a Philippine Navy officer, who distinguished himself during the Second World War when the patrol boat he commanded reportedly shot down three Japanese aircrafts.

DFA spokesman Raul Hernandez meanwhile, denied reports that the Chinese vessels had left the Panatag Shoal.

Hernandez said that contrary to reports, Chinese vessels continue to intrude into Philippine maritime territories.

“They leave. They come back. They come back and forth. The intrusions are continuing,” said Hernandez, wo added that the Philippines remained steadfast in its stand that the shoal is part of Philippine territory.
“Our position remains the same that these areas are part of our national territory and China should respect that,” he said.

Hernandez made the statement following reports on Wednesday that a a senior security official had said that the Chinese vessels had sailed away from the Panatag Shoal.

source:  Malaya