Obama’s decision to involve Congress in the planned retribution against Syria for it’s unleashing of chemical weapons last week that allegedly killed 1,429 people will delay the airstrikes because Congress is on recess and the senators and congressmen will resume session on Sept. 9 yet.
There is no assurance that Congress will come on board just like what happened with British Prime David Cameron who was rebuffed by the British Parliament in his decision to get involved in the Syrian turmoil.
An article in www.foreign policy.com by Daniel Byman said, “Congress’s first question should be about the president’s claim that, “our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.” Yes, of course, the Syrian civil war still will be raging weeks from now, and the U.S. military will remain prepared to strike. But during those weeks the carnage will continue, with jihadists growing stronger among the opposition. The diplomatic moment created by Bashar al-Assad’s massive use of chemical weapons on August 21 will fade as other concerns become prominent on the international agenda.”
The same thing would happen with the Philippines in case of an armed conflict because the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty provides that in case of “an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties…. it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”
Obama seeking Congress’s approval is what “constitutional processes” means.
Carpio was explaining why going to the United Nations was the best option for the Philippines in the territorial conflict with the behemoth neighbor.
He said: “The Philippines had five options in responding to the Chinese occupation of Scarborough Shoal. First was to send naval vessels and marines to retake Scarborough Shoal. This was not feasible because of the superior Chinese naval forces.
“Second was to file a diplomatic protest with China. This was useless because China would simply ignore the protest – as it ignored the protest of the Philippines after China seized Mischief Reef 17 years earlier in 1995.
“Third was to ask Asean to lobby China to withdraw from Scarborough Shoal. This was not realistic because some Asean countries are hesitant to offend China. Besides, Asean countries do not take sides on territorial disputes.
“Fourth was to take the matter to the United Nations Security Council. This was also futile since China has a veto power in the Security Council.
“The fifth and only viable option was to bring the matter to an international tribunal for arbitration, where the playing field would be level and military power would not count, but only the rule of law would govern.”
Carpio said with China’s occupation of Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines had no other recourse but to go to an Annex VII arbitral tribunal under UNCLOS.”It was the only sensible and effective response that the Philippines could offer. Otherwise, nothing would stop China from occupying another rock, reef, or shoal within its 9-dashed line claim even if within the EEZ of the Philippines. “
He further explained: “The Chinese occupation of Scarborough Shoal is an invasion of Philippine territory, giving rise to a territorial sovereignty dispute. However, the Philippines could not bring China to compulsory arbitration on a territorial sovereignty dispute without China’s consent. “
“That is why,” he said, “ the Philippines decided to do the next best thing – bring China to compulsory arbitration on the maritime aspect of China’s 9-dashed line claim. If China’s 9-dashed line claim is invalidated, then China will lose its excessive claim to the waters of the South China Sea. More significantly, China’s basis for claiming territorial sovereignty over the islands within its 9-dashed line claim will weaken considerably since the 9-dashed line claim is central to China’s historical claim to territorial sovereignty over the islands within the enclosed area.”
Carpio gave an update of the Philippine case at the UN Arbitral Court: “The 5-man Annex VII arbitral tribunal met for the first time last July 11, 2013 and designated The Hague as seat of the arbitration and the Permanent Court of Arbitration as the Registry of the proceedings.
“Although China has refused to participate in the proceedings, it is still being notified, and requested to comment, at every stage of the proceedings. Last Tuesday, August 27, 2013, the Tribunal issued an Order approving its Rules of Procedure and directing the Philippines to submit its Memorial not later than March 30, 2014.
“The Order states that the Memorial shall ‘fully address all issues, including matters relating to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the admissibility of the Philippines’ claim, as well as the merits of the dispute.’
“The Order further states, ‘The Arbitral Tribunal will determine the further course of the proceedings, including the need for and scheduling of any other written submissions and hearings, at an appropriate later stage, after seeking the views of the Parties.’
Carpio said based on the Tribunal’s Order requiring all issues to be addressed in the Memorial of the Philippines, “it is possible that the Tribunal may decide the jurisdictional issue together with merits of the dispute.Arbitrations under Annex VII may take two to three years before a decision is reached. “
And if the Congress would not come on Board, will it ever expect the next Presidents to ever consult it as it is not really Necessary for the US President to do so? That if the Congress embarrass the President that will create a very dangerous President and the Congress will not Do it.
I wept while watching those dying little kids gasping for breath while dead bodies gathered around them and soon, the kids were among the rows of the dead. I hope the SEAL Team Six are called to Syria to take down Assad.
There is one group collecting all the videos of the dying scenes after the gas attack in Syria, I just can find the link at the moment.
The link is here:
http://www.therevoltingsyrian.com/
Be prepared to get really angry. The Western world should move fast, and waste this guy. No war. Get a composite elite team – US Navy Seals, Brits, the French foreign legion.
Waste this son of a bitch.
From Alvin Firmeza:
you’ve written a lot about the scarborough shoal issue but i have not read it mentioned anywhere in your writings that scarborough shoal was never included in the treaty of paris between the us and spain. neither by the way does the dfa and all other commentators mention this (most of whom consider scarborough part of the philippine simply because it is mentioned in some map or other which is silly), except in a paper by baviera and batongbacal. neither have you and the others referred to official namria maps of the philippines in discussions of scarborough, whether scarborough is indeed part of philippine territory or not before the signing of the un law of the sea.
according to lawyers (i wish you would ask constitutionalists like fr bernas and up and ateneo professors about this in greater detail), the philippine territory as defined in the various constitutions since 1898 including the 1986 constitution is defined according to the treaty of paris and related treaties. now of course this makes scarborough shoal not a part of philippine territory, isn’t it?
now the philippines is claiming scarborough shoal as part of its territory or eec (sometimes its not clear whether it is eec or territory or both, and the reason for this is another subject to ask lawyers and experts to discuss, because the philippine definition of territory includes waters which is alien to the spirit by the law of the law of the sea). and obviously if the facts above are correct the only legal basis for this is the un law of the sea (although in the media the public is conditioned to believe that even before the un law of the sea scarborough was somehow part of the philippines which is a complete fabrication).
now what happens under the law of the sea and in international law if there is a prior claim by another country to a territory (a complicating issue is whether scarborough land or a feature of the sea but both china (orc and taiwan) and the philippines seem to agree that scarborough is a real island) that lies within the 200 nautical mile zone of a country but was not before part of the legal territory of that country? this is the situation with respect to scarborough shoal which is claimed both by the people’s republic (as successor state of the republic of china) and taiwan since 1939 or thereabouts (the so-called nine- or eleven-dash lines), when the philippines was not even yet a republic.
as an answer to precisely this case, justice carpio said recently in a speech (but only in speech and i wish he would have the opportunity to write this in a legal opinion) that such claims are actually incompatible with the law of the sea. is justice antonio carpio correct? of the many articles i have read he is the only one who has addressed this issue head on. this is the question that i ask you and all other opinion makers in media and that i wish you would take up with the help of experts in international law and the law of the sea.
i think it would help in the public’s appreciation of the situation if all aspects of the matter are discussed honestly.
yours truly,
alvin firmeza