The Philippine military is reporting “no unusual” movements” on Pag-asa Island in the disputed Spratlys “regime of islands” in the wake of the Chinese protest against the passage of the Philippine Territorial Baselines Bill (which is reportedly set to be signed into law as early as Tuesday by Pres. Arroyo).
If anything should take place militarily, will this be the next flashpoint?
The heavens forbid that such an incident will come to pass ahead of a United Nations move to use its good offices to calm hawks in Manila and Beijing.
To be sure, the Philippines can ill afford a shooting war over a strip of land whose sole airstrip runs its full length of 1.2 kilometers.
The Philippine Baselines Bill all but scuttles the Ramos-era “win-win” solution of joint stewardship of the Spratlys by the six claimant nations: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
As chronicled by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism:
“Over the past two decades, such claims have resulted in military skirmishes, as well as drilling and exploration disputes, among claimants, often with China. Considered the most serious was China’s invasion and capture of Paracel Islands from Vietnam in 1974, and later in 1988, when the Chinese and Vietnamese naval forces clashed at Johnson Reef in the Spratly Islands, which caused the sinking of several Vietnamese boats and deaths of over 70 sailors. In the case of the Philippines, the most significant clash with China happened in 1995 with the latter’s occupation of Mischief (Panganiban) Reef, which is well within the country’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone as defined by UNCLOS. This was followed by its takeover of Scarborough Shoal in 2001. n 1999, the Sino-Filipino territorial conflict again flared up with the completion of construction on Mischief Reef — a five-story fortified, cement building alongside three octagonal structures on stilts. The Philippines saw this as proof that China is intending to establish military facilities in the area, although China has maintained that the structures are meant only as shelters for Chinese fishermen.”
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2239
Former President Fidel Ramos has so far not weighed in on the controversy but he should certainly speak up sooner than later, having also been AFP Chief of Staff during his long stay in government.
A nagging question that surfaces in all of this is just how comprehensive the public consultations were before the Baselines Bill was passed?
Or were Filipinos largely left ‘unconsulted’ or were people disinterested despite the implications of a unilateral revision of the Philippines’s international treaty limits???
Popularity: 1% [?]
I don’t think it’ll ever reach a shooting war.
For one thing, if the Chinese come for a war, the we’ve nothing to shoot them with. maybe sticks and stones.
So let me play devil’s advocate.
Maybe this is an insidious attempt by GMA’s government to get US attention. RP makes noise, Uncle Barack has to come in and deal with Arroyo.
coy,
Most intuitive. :)
you said:
“The Philippine Baselines Bill all but scuttles the Ramos-era “win-win” solution of joint stewardship of the Spratlys by the six claimant nations: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.”
why?
why does confirming the claim scuttle joint stewardship?
the paragraph u cited is something else. A problem happens when claimants use of military force (as opposed to legal maneuverings) to manage the islands.
military force is exactly the sort of thing that the joint stewardship agreement is supposed to prevent, right?
Unilateral revision of international treaty limits?
What treaty?
The Treaty of Paris?
Come on. That treaty is obsolete and ought to be revised.
It is extant J.
GabbyD,
It is a view I am positing for discussion precisely.
Gents, Note likewise that indeed UN action, prompt action, becomes imperative.
IUf you care to, pore over the PCIJ piece I have provided a link to then comment rather than shooting from the hip. :)
Ding, I’ve read that link before I posted my comments.
Your Ramos-era “win-win solution” was possible only because of the united front taken by the ASEAN. After the 1997 financial crisis, ASEAN has ceased to be solidly united. And because of the JMSU, the unity was further broken.
And your Ramos-era “win-win” solution was a win for China for it got to violate the agreements when ASEAN unity deteriorated. I think you overrate the former President’s actions on the Spratlys.
At any rate, I highly doubt if Pag-asa can become a flash point. I highly doubt if the Chinese still view South China Sea through a 19th century gunboat diplomacy telescope.
Talk before shooting…Diplomacy can resolve the
issue.
J,
You are misreading my own position, Note I enclosed the win-win phrase in quotes meaning that was how Ramos sold it.
Do I endorse that? No. Because at best, its a panacea, if you wil..
Further, your “I highly doubt if Pag-asa can become a flash point. I highly doubt if the Chinese still view South China Sea through a 19th century gunboat diplomacy telescope.”
Let’s see how things unfold, shall we?
BTW, as I’ve previously observed elsewhere, China having taken the capitalist road, certainly would not want to shoot first and talk later.
Further on, it benefits no one for violence to be resorted to.
Oops, sorry Ding. My bad. But it did appear in your last post that you were endorsing it.
You said:
“”What have the Senate and the House of Representatives done here?
If President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo foolishly signs the revised Philippine Baselines bill into law she may put the Philippines on the threshold of a shooting war with the People’s Republic of China
Are we fully ready to assert the widened coverage of the nation’s territorial limits through force of arms with our practically non-existent Philippine Navy?
Whatever happened to the Ramos-era formula of joint stewardship of areas where countries have overlapping claims??”"
A factual reference is an endorsement???
Well, I thought that the context in which you referred to it constituted an endorsement of sort.
But I’m sorry if I’m mistaken.
May I be indulged some levity?
There’s that old joke that for China to go to war against, they all just have to pee simultaneously for us to drown in… :)
And since China likes to claim everything because they named it and the names appeared in their imperial records, maybe one day they would claim Binondo too.
Or maybe they would claim even my pancit and lumpiang shanghai.
Seriously though, my friend, as I’m sure you’ve seen they have such volumes of those ancient maps that they can claim to have mapped the world way way ahead of Google Earth.
Hell, if we take their accounts, even Christopher Columbus was not primo.
One of the results (and some folks will call it a major benefit), should China overrun Luzon, will be Singapore and Saudi Arabia opening their “doors” to Filipinos seeking asylum.
Ding,
The fact is is that Vietnam and Malaysia are sure to file for an extended shelf claim. In order to do that they need to define their baseline which I don’t know if they already have.
But as long as they know what baseline they’ll draw; they can have already mapped out and studied what scientific bases they will employ in claiming an extended continental shelf.
China has been silent in claimng an extended shelf before the CLCS but that wouldn’t prevent them from beating the deadline themselves on May 12 or 13, 2009.
If we don’t do it and other claimants do with regadrs to Scarborough and the KIG, we will be legally at a disadvantage before the CLCS/UNCLOS.
I say we make our claim and start new diplomatic maneouverings from there.
@Ding G. Gagelonia on February 21st, 2009 7:07 am
you said “It is a view I am positing for discussion precisely.”
so its not your view? oks…
who’s shooting from the hip?
Former UP law dean raised two points here – under the bill, the territory of RP has become smaller and he finds it strange that the bill was drafted voluntarily with nay a demand from another entity.
In the new scheme and scene, RP has just opened its surrounding territories (being an archipelago) for all cruising vessels to pass by. Maybe, the bill was not well studied the carrot being dangled with is the reported $8 billion China will loan to RP.
GabbyD,
“so its not your view? oks…
who’s shooting from the hip?”
C’mon bro,
Am positing it does not mean hindi inisip at inaral, kabilang na ang pagtatanong sa mga pantas at higit na may karanasan sa asignatura ng kasaysayan.
Ngayon kaya’y iyo nang naarok? Don’t heckle, discuss.
justice league,
Here we agree. That’s wy I am saying the UN must now be drawn in and have its good offices begin looking for a resolution, a lasting resolution given the apparent”outdated-ness” of even the Treaty of Paris.
Looking hard at this aspect then we should look back at which countries negotiated the treaty of Paris where America paid $20-M for the P.I. at which time historians reckoned it cost $8 dollar per Filipino who fell under Uncle Sam’s “benevolent assimilation.”
kp,
You are correct. You refer to Dean Merlin Magallona who presented a paper before
Miriam’s committee.
But let me nuance it:
The Baselines bill redrew the territorial treaty limits, and its expansion or reduction depends on which principle is applied, that is to say including, or excluding, archipelagic (open for innocent passage) waters and the other technicalities with regard the EEZs, the reach of the continental shelf and extended EEZs.
nuance is not a verb.
Too bad you do not understand what litarary license is… nagmamarunong ka? Taga UP ka kamo?
Again my invitation to you… unmask yourself instead of hiding behind a pretentious mask. Address the point of the post, bro.
Ding,
Since we agree on diplomatic channels then I guess that’s that between us.
Couldn’t help it, I sensed a target popped its head, so just shot :razz: from the hip, Ding.
And I did not think you’d be thin-skinned on nouns versus verbs. I thought ex-journalists are more aware than plain folks on insistence on quality in writing.
Go to the point, since hindi ka maalam kahit sa literary license. Again, the invite (yan alam mo rin ang nuance?) is for you to discuss, share your ‘talino’ and unmask yourself.
i think it’s time the terms “journalist” and “columnist” aka pundit, be distinguished.
i think journalists report the news in its pristine form, untainted by personal biases of the reporter. columnist interprets and spins the “news” according to his beliefs, prejudices, understanding, and, of course, politics.
many spinmeisters call themselves “journalist” but i believe they are not fooling anyone who was not born yesterday.
Atty. Ben,
Care to help us lesser mortals understand the crisis, potential or actual?
You apparently feel the issue is being ‘spun’.
But you know about that being a liar….errrr.I mean lawyer, right boss?
Dohelp
BTW
Thanks for dropping a line. Been waiting when you would, idol :)
Are we the only nation who hasn’t learned from World War II. Give an ambitious country like China (Germany or the US, for that matter) an inch and they’ll take their mile.
We can make a bid for history as first country to resist Chinese imperialism.
Brian
You make a very good point here.I would caution you a bit, though.
Some might tag you as a warmongering hawk. (Redundancy intended)
When it comes to the South China Sea, until all claims are resolved, hopefully through peaceful means, the aim of our diplomacy should be clear enough: never to face China alone under any circumstances and in any forum. Whatever deals with the Devil need to be made to pursue that diplomacy will simply have to be made. The Philippines must always (be seen to) stand on moral high ground, and that means in practical terms wrapping ourselves up in some kind of regional flag. ASEAN is too useful for us to write off yet!
Teasing “Qing Cong”?
Choose your weapon.
Do we have a national defense policy?
Pera?
Ala rin? Hmmm…
!TARRUB