Does Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario have a problem with the case filed with the United Nations Arbitral Court against China’s nine-dash line map that prompted him to commission Social Weather Stations to do a survey which focused on the case and the problem with China in the West Philippine Sea?
SWS conducted a nationwide survey among 1,550 respondents on Dec. 11 through 16.
Foreign Affairs Spokesman Raul Hernandez said they wanted to know the sentiments of the public on specific issues and the results showed that the Filipino people “overwhelmingly” support the case filed by the Philippines at the UN Arbitral Tribunal January last year.
The results could not be less than “overwhelming” what with questions like “Dahil ang Tsina ay malakas sa aspetong military at ekonomiya, sinampahan natin ng kaso ang Tsina sa United nation sa paniniwalang pantay-pantay ang labanan sa ilalim ng batas internasyunal. Sang-ayon ba kayo o hindi?” (Opinion on whether the international law is a great equalizer against countries that are stronger militarily and economically.) Answer: 77% Yes; 15 % No; 8% Don’t know.
Another question: “Dapat ba nating ipaglaban sa mapayapang paraan ang ating teritoryo at likas-yaman sa West Philippine Sea ayon sa saligang Batas at batas internasyunal?(Opinion whether the Philippines should defend the territory and natural resources in the West Philippine Sea through lawful means.) Answers: 93 % Yes; 2% No; 5% Don’t know.
It’s like asking someone, “Do you like your life to be good?” Or a wife asking a husband, “Would you grieve if I die?”
A reporter asked Hernandez and SWS President Mahar Mangahas why they didn’t ask respondents whether they agree to the proposal of China to talk about the territorial conflict in the West Philippine Sea bilaterally. They did not explain why that question was not included.
It would have been interesting if the respondents were asked,“If China continues to occupy other islands being claimed by the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea, would you support the use of force by the Philippine government? Would you volunteer to join the Philippine contingent?”
Mangahas said they were the ones who formulated the questions based on the objective laid out by the DFA. The questioned were approved by the DFA.
The respondents were also asked, ““Tungkol sa patuloy na pagpapalakas ng puwersang military ng Tsina sa West Philippine Sea, kayo po ba ay sang-ayon o hindi-sangayon na dapat tayong humingi ng tulong sa iba?” (Degree of Agreement that the Philippines should ask the help of others regarding China’s continuous strengthening of military forces in the West Philippine Sea?)
Answers:Strongly/Somewhat Agree (80%); Undecided If Agree or DisAgree (8%); Somewhat/Strongly Disagree (10%).
It would have been interesting to know if the respondents believe other countries will help the Philippines in case there would be armed confrontation between the Philippines and China.
Mangahas shared a survey result, not commissioned by the DFA, showing that trust in China is minus 17 as against plus 82 in the US, plus 53 in Australia, plus 47 in Japan, plus 11 in Taiwan and plus 8 in Malayisa.
Mangahas said trust in China has been negative since 2012. Last year it was minus 30, he said.
I would be interested to know the answer to the question: “Do you approve cutting diplomatic relations with China?”
I think the survey results would be included in the memorial, documents to persuade the court to rule in favor of the filer’s position, which the Philippines is set to file not later than March 30, 2014. After that, the UN Arbitral Tribunal will decide whether it has jurisdiction on the case or not.
If the UN Arbitral Tribunal says it has jurisdiction, the proceedings will continue despite the non-participation of China. If the court says otherwise, it would be a major setback for the Philippines, especially for Del Rosario, under whose watch in the DFA relations with China deteriorated.
Since China knows that no pressure would make the Philippines withdraw the UN case,it has been lobbying with other Asean countries to pressure the Philippines to delay the filing of the memorial.
The 10-member Asean,as a group, has not made a position in support of the Philippines. Individually,only Vietnam, one of the claimants in the South China Sea islands, has expressed support in the Philippine case against China but it has declined Philippine request to intervene in the case.
The United States lauded the Philippines for bringing the issue to the UN court but stressed that it is taking a neutral position on the South China Sea territorial dispute.
“………..Would you volunteer to join the Philippine contingent?””
why not, if am asked. and am more glad if noynoy would be fighting with me in the front TOGETHER
ulitin….. naputol:
“………..Would you volunteer to join the Philippine contingent?””
why not, if am asked. and am more glad if noynoy would be fighting with me in the front TOGETHER with the three senators who used to kill a hundred opponents single-handledly in their movies. i want to see how brave they really are in fighting a real battle.
Dapat hindi na ipaglaban ang isla na iyon kasi nakakahiya. Sasabihin na walang utang na loob ang mga Pilipino sa mga intsik. Ibigay ang spratly island sa mga intsik para mapakinabangan. Kung Pilipinas lang ang mag aangkin ng isla na iyon ay walang pakinabang na makukuha kasi hanggang isla lang. Walang mangyayari na pag develop kasi mahirap ang bansang Pilipinas pero mayayaman ang mga politiko. Huwag maging makasarili dahil kapag makasarili hindi uunlad ang bansa.
Maraming Pilipino ang nagkakapera maging sa masama man o mabuti dahil sa mga intsik. Kaya nararapat lamang na bilang pagtanaw ng utang na loob hayaan na ang spratly island ay mapunta sa mga intsik kasi mapapakinabangan pa iyon.
Relations with China deteriorated under Del Rosario’s watch for the same reason they deteriorated with Japan, which is not under Del Rosario’s watch. China took outrageous actions to claim the lands held by other states. Why do you see ANY Filipinos as culprits in this drama? It seems to me the Philippines was just minding its own business and China moved in. China would have moved in had Jesus been heading Foreign Affairs. Laying the blame on Del Rosario is a very cheap shot.
I rather suspect the U.S. position is neutral only on the surface, for diplomatic good will. If China continues to do stupid, aggressive, obnoxious things, expect that neutrality to bend.
One thing I notice about this Del Rosario is that he never speaks Filipino. He’s fluent in English which gives me the impression that he’s US educated and has been in the US for a while. But as DFA Secretary, he should be proud of his own language. During the interviews if asked in Filipino (Tagalog), he replies in English. Never I hear him speaks a word of Filipino.
Finally, the US breaks its neutrality as far as the South China Sea claims are concerned.
Obviously, the US is not taking all these provocations of China very lightly. No less than the State Dept’s top officials are clarifying the US’ previously ambiguous pronouncements.
An expert on US policy on China echoes Russel’s testimony in US Congress:
This hardening of positions of the US is making the Chinks in the Beijing politburo soil their pants. What they feared has just happened. What’s worse, the US may begin encouraging its SE Asian allies to be more “public” in rtejecting the nine-dash line. A throwback of GW Bush’s “Either you’re with us or against us”.
Another expert from NY’s Hofstra University hints that this declaration comes in response to Aquino’s plea for support from the international community published in the NY TImes and at the advent of Obama’s postponed Asian trip last year. Obama is hoping to arrive to a warm hero’s welcome in Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines – all in dispute with China in the same sea.
Noynoy must be proudly patting his own back by now.
The source of my post: http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/east-asia-beat/claim-02092014205453.html
Too bad our newspapers missed that one. We are 100% too much into Vhong Navarro and Napoles we missed the more important news.
It takes eight attempts to log in. You are being hacked again.
The article above has the expert stating:
There is no surprise. The US has not ratified the UNCLOS.
There is an amicus brief to be filed by a Professor of the University of Bonn and Oxford (Professor Stefan Talmon). He opines that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. His profile is found below:
20essexst.com/member/professor-stefan-talmon
Tatlong w sa harap.
You can download the paper below:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2393025
Put the (http://) in front.
I read the first part. It presents solid arguments. Read carefully, page 22. That is the factual basis for China’s claim.
I hope the Penoy will employ truly good minds. Too bad he seems adverse to the services of Estelito Mendoza. But his mother employed a lightweight – Merlin Magallona; in that half-dumb intervention in the case between Indonesia and Malaysia.
icj-cij.org/docket/?pr=338&code=inma&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=102&k=df&PHPSESSID=137e6b049d3288ebe37e63211bf47f72
Lagyan ng tatlong w sa harap.
Jurisdiction is a legal question. Whatever opinion our people have has no bearing on whether or not the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction. I do not see the point of this exercise.
As to the merits of the case, that too, cannot be affected by the opinion of the man on the street – whether Manila streets, or Beijing streets.
@saxnviolins re #9, that’s an interesting subject, this “jurisdiction” thing. The difficulty the US has with these international treaties is that the patriotism or rabid dedication to America that some legislators have overwhelms the great need for the world to act as one harmonious community. They can’t “let go” of authority. Not for UNCLOS, not for global climate change rules. And it is frankly easier to take that position when you are a “big dog” nation.
The trouble now is that China has grown to become a big dog, and has pretty much the same mode of operation. The trouble is, this dog is rabid.
Even if there is no jurisdiction, legalistically, there is a common ground or common weight that says all nations must at some point be respectful of the rights of others. If ITLOS rules in the Philippine favor, there is no enforcement mechanism other than the conscience. I suspect China does not have one, but at least the Philippines threw what little weight she has behind the right values.
Washington announces a policy, everyone follows.
Meanwhile, China urges the US to respect history, the only trump card they are flashing with respect to Japan in Daoyiu and the Philippines in West Phil Sea. Hinting that the Japs were the bad boys of the 40s.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-02/15/content_17284354.htm
You have to switch from one browser to another to log in.
There is an informative discussion in Opinio Juris about the China-Philippines dispute. Alphabetical yan. Baka may magalit that I put China first.
In one post,
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/10/26/u-s-set-precedent-chinarussia-boycott-unclos-arbitration/
Julian Ku (Professor at New York’s Hofstra Law School) adverts to the US walking away from ICJ proceedings after it had agreed to the ICJ’s jurisdiction. He adverts to US snubbing of the ICJ, in the case of Nicaragua (an award was made by the ICJ), and the cases of Avena and LaGrand.
Julian Ku’s post is actually a reaction to comments by Wim Muller, a fellow at the Chatham House (Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all.)
Wim Muller’s comments are found in the comments section of this post.
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/02/19/goodbye-unclos-dispute-settlement-china-walks-away-from-unclos-arbitration-with-the-philippines/
Awaiting moderation? Okay I will delete the w’s.
You have to switch from one browser to another to log in.
There is an informative discussion in Opinio Juris about the China-Philippines dispute. Alphabetical yan. Baka may magalit that I put China first.
In one post,
opiniojuris.org/2013/10/26/u-s-set-precedent-chinarussia-boycott-unclos-arbitration/
put the h t t p : / / (no spaces) in front.
Julian Ku (Professor at New York’s Hofstra Law School) adverts to the US walking away from ICJ proceedings after it had agreed to the ICJ’s jurisdiction. He adverts to US snubbing of the ICJ, in the case of Nicaragua (an award was made by the ICJ), and the cases of Avena and LaGrand.
Julian Ku’s post is actually a reaction to comments by Wim Muller, a fellow at the Chatham House (Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all.)
Wim Muller’s comments are found in the comments section of this post.
opiniojuris.org/2013/02/19/goodbye-unclos-dispute-settlement-china-walks-away-from-unclos-arbitration-with-the-philippines/
put the h t t p : / / (no spaces) in front.
Tongue, they have to specify what kind of aid.
You have to remember that before the US president can send troops abroad, it has to be approved by their Congress. You know very well how contentious that would be and how long it would take.
Meanwhile, if we are at war with China, by the time they made a decision, baka hindi lang Spratlys ang nasakop ng China.
The official policy of the US as far as Spratlys is concerned is they are neutral. As to the Mutual Defense Treaty, they said as of the time of the signing of the agreement, the Philippines had not yet claimed islands in Spratlys.
What is important to the US in the South China Sea issue is freedom of navigation. They just want to ensure that the sea lanes are open to everybody.
Ellen, these are very recent and it comes just before the Obama visit. The latest pronouncements sent waves across the Pacific and into the South China Sea. Obama isn’t coming over to swim in Boracay, but to send a strong message and the message is exactly that: We are not neutral, we will defend our allies. That, to me, is our best defense yet so far.
The sealanes is just one of the reasons and NOT the only one. America is a jealous friend. Yes, Obama needs congress to declare war, but only the Philippine President, whoever he is, to approve of US Naval fleets stationing in our territory. Unlike Iraq’s invisible WMDs or Afghanistan’s Taliban hideout, US Congress does not need to be convinced an American ship has been sunk or a plane downed by China, whether it’s true or not.
It is the State Department speaking, Kerry confirmed it in Beijing, and as far as we’re concerned, that statement is official.