Quantcast

With Due Respect

Most vexing security problem

By |

The Philippines’ dispute with China over the islets and reefs (and their underlying resources and overhead airspace) in the West Philippine Sea (WPS), also known as the South China Sea (SCS), is probably our most vexing security problem.

Origin of dispute. On May 7, 2009, China submitted a note verbale (or diplomatic letter) to the United Nations claiming “indisputable sovereignty” over all the islands in the WPS and their “adjacent/relevant waters” encompassed by its now famous “nine-dash line map.”

This map covers the entire SCS bordering the shorelines of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines. It converts the huge SCS into an internal waterway or lake of China, similar to a gigantic Laguna de Bay.

For the Philippines, the dispute involves mainly (1) the Kalayaan or Spratlys group of about 700 isles and reefs (called Nansha by China) located 370 kilometers west of Palawan, and (2) the Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Panatag or Scarborough Shoal (called Huangyan by China) located 220 km west of Zambales. The Philippines claims ownership of the resources in and sovereignty over many of the Kalayaan isles and Masinloc.

China asserts that “the Philippines’ illegal occupation of some of the islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands is the direct cause [of] the SCS dispute between China and the Philippines.” To back its assertion, China created “Sansha City” on July 24, 2012, “to administer” the whole SCS and the islets, reefs and resources there and sent armed naval vessels “to safeguard” them.

The Department of Foreign Affairs alleges that “it has become impossible to continue bilateral negotiations” with China given its “rigid” and “hard-line position of indisputable sovereignty over the WPS.”

Arbitration solution. The Philippines was thus constrained to initiate arbitral proceedings under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The Philippines and China along with 163 other countries ratified Unclos and are thus bound by it.

Essentially, the Philippines is asking the Arbitral Tribunal to declare that (1) China’s and the Philippines’ rights to maritime areas in the SCS were established by Unclos; (2) “China’s maritime claims in the SCS… are contrary to Unclos and invalid”; and (3) China should “desist from activities that violate” the Philippines’ maritime rights.

Unclos recognizes four types of maritime zones: (1) territorial waters, computed at 12 nautical miles (NM) from the baselines; (2) contiguous zone (24 NM from the baselines), (3) exclusive economic zone or EEZ (200 NM from the baselines); and (4) continental shelf (additional 150 NM) subject to certain conditions.

The littoral state exercises sovereignty over the territorial waters; customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitation authority over the contiguous zone; and rights to exploit the living and nonliving resources in the EEZ and continental shelf.

On March 10, 2009, the Philippines approved Republic Act 9522 defining the baselines from where its maritime zones are to be computed. The Supreme Court (Magalona vs Ermita, July 16, 2011, penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio) upheld the law’s constitutionality, thereby complying with the prerequisite to avail of maritime rights granted under Unclos.

If the Philippines wins in the Arbitral Tribunal, China’s claims will be limited to the four maritime zones defined in Unclos. The decision would invalidate China’s nine-dash line map, and open the SCS to international navigation.

Moreover, the Philippines would be able to exploit the resources in its four maritime zones, including the vast oil, gas and mineral deposits.

Finally, this would be, to quote Foreign Secretary Albert F. Del Rosario, “a stirring victory of the rule of law.”

China, however, refused to participate in the Arbitral Tribunal arguing that Unclos does not cover territorial ownership or maritime boundary conflicts.

But the Philippines said the dispute is not about ownership of land or maritime boundaries, but about whether China’s map conforms to Unclos. In any event, under Unclos, a party’s refusal to participate “shall not constitute a bar to the proceeding.”

Intensify diplomacy. Assuming  arguendo  that China can prove its ownership, the islets are not entitled to maritime zones because they are not independently habitable, given that only soldiers on ration from China populate them. And even if they are habitable, China is entitled only to the maritime zone around those islets, which are dwarfed by the much longer baselines of Palawan and Luzon.

Can a Philippine victory be enforced? Well, the world powers, like the United States, will probably continue using SCS as a high sea, free from Chinese sovereignty. Since the Philippines does not have the armed clout to enforce its maritime rights, we could appeal to the United Nations Security Council. And failing in that (since China has veto powers in the Council), world opinion via the General Assembly would be our last enforcement option.

Having said that, I believe that alongside arbitration, we should intensify our diplomatic initiatives. Lately, Chinese President Xi Jinping has been quoted as wanting “to resolve its maritime territorial dispute peacefully and through talks… but will not abandon its legitimate rights and interests, nor will it give up its core national interests.” China, too, has agreed to multilateral talks with Asean, a modification of its earlier stance of negotiating only bilaterally with us.

I truly hope that this vexing security problem can be solved peacefully and amicably without loss of face for the Philippines and China.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com


Follow Us





More from this Column:




Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=58607

  • parengtony

    But China is precisely banking on the weaker neighbor’s fear of embarrassing China.

    Forget about worrying about China losing face. China is a bully and should be treated as such – a rich and powerful bully without shame.

  • GMGUERRERO

    Forget China.

    The PH cannot win even against the criminal enterprise of the politicians and warlords like Chavit. Estrada is Manila mayor. His two sons are senators. The Marcoses in the senate and in the house. They are using money to win elections stolen from the people. Who in the whole wide world has a better racket than that? Filipino politicians and their families are no different than the Mafia.

    Who knows, maybe China has already bought some Filipino politicians. Ask Gloria.

  • Philcruz

    The problem with the UN rules is that some countries are more equal than others. Why do countries like China, the US and Russia have veto powers?

    • RyanE

      Those countries, including Great Britain and France, were the victors of WWII. They established the UN and accorded themselves veto powers.

  • carpediem123

    artemio, since you persist on writing aimlessly, i would like to make a suggestion where you could make an invaluable contribution to the public whom you did not serve welll when you were still in government (look at the mess of the justice system after you left, which means, you have not done anything to better the situation that it was in when you found it. in fact, it must have even deteriorated while you were there…..)

    why don’t you spend the best remaining years of your life exposing those laws which need to be replealed like the the highway robbery – mining law…

    try to redeem yourself. surely you are not writing because you are bored or for the money, we would like to believe that you are having a noblier motive than that…

  • RyanE

    “Having said that, I believe that alongside arbitration, we should intensify our diplomatic initiatives.”

    Yes, but I think there’s one most important aspect that we should add.. to modernize and strengthen our defense capabilities. I believe that China has virtually depleted its natural resources and hence looking outwards to conquer other territories and pillage their resources.

  • pabulaka

    Who created, approved and authorized the 1995 Mining Law in Congress? I know it was enacted in Congress but was it questioned in the SC? If so, who were the magistrates that say it is consitutional?

  • jpastor

    I am hoping that the Arbitral Tribunal will not act like what Pontius Pilate did – washed his hands to show he is not responsible for the execution of Jesus…

  • jeff

    we just hope that the 9dashline of china will be invalidated soon. The strongest weapon of the philippines against communist china is our freedom of speech and our freedom of unlimited access to the internet. As well as the countless highly educated and well connected Filipinos worldwide.

    Communist china should not underestimate the will, patriotism, and ingenuity of the Filipinos worldwide.



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement
Marketplace