No ifs and buts about it: the Philippines and China are no longer friends.
That’s a decision that the Philippines made when it hauled China to the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal over the latter’s all -South -China -Sea-encompassing 9-dash line map. As former ambassador to the United Nations Lauro Baja said, “When we filed a case against China at the U.N. that was the end of diplomacy.”
The submission of the Memorial on the case today at the U.N. Court’s headquarters at The Hague further reinforced the hostility.
As a sovereign country, the Philippines has every right to choose who to be friends with and who to take on. The Aquino government has chosen to battle with China. It’s a move applauded by allies who are uncomfortable with the enormous strength of modern China but are hesitant to antagonize the world’s second largest economy.
The Philippines can bask in that momentary applause but at the end of the day it has only itself to rely on when push comes to shove in the conflict with China.
Chinese officials, intent to save relations with the Philippines, requested through emissaries to delay the filing of the Memorial. Brunei, one of the four claimants in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, told Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario last January that they are of the opinion that a delay in the submission of the Memorial would ease the tension in the region.
The same request was sent by China to President Aquino through a backchannel. “We don’t expect the Philippines to withdraw the suit because we understand that national pride is at stake. But we hope you can delay it, “ was the message from a ranking Chinese official.
Aquino and his advisers decided to reject China’s request.
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said Wednesday “China is unswerving in its resolve and determination to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity. We hope that the Philippine side can be fully aware of the complexity and sensitivity of the South China Sea issue, return to the right track of resolving the dispute through negotiation and consultation as soon as possible, stop going any further down the wrong track so as to avoid further damage to bilateral relations.”
Now that the Philippines has decided to take the hardline position against China, the question is, what preparations is it taking to be ready for China’s retaliation.
History has shown that Chinese never let pass a hostile move against them. The retaliation may not be immediate but they hit back.
The Philippines has many vulnerable spots that China can choose to hit. Unlike Philippine leaders whose foreign affairs moves are aimed for the gallery,the Chinese are focused in their vision. They will not do things to hurt the Philippines that will also have an adverse effect on them. It is unlikely that they will send back Filipino workers in Hongkong because it will cause difficulties to the people of Hongkong. They will not cut their nose to spite their face.
The possible retaliation of China will be to occupy more islands in the contested areas.
For all intents and purposes, the Philippines has already lost Scarborough Shoal also known as Bajo de Masinloc and Panatag Shoal (Huangyan Island to the Chinese).
With three ships permanently stationed in Scarborough Shoal,China is in control of the rock, 124 nautical miles from Zambales since April 8, 2012.
They have also been in control of Mischief Reef in the Spratlys since 1995.
A 1998 study by then Lieutenant Michael Studeman of the U.S. Navy showed that the Chinese occupied Mischief in retaliation to what it considered “betrayal” by the Philippines.
Studeman wrote:” China’s occupation of Mischief Reef was not a bolt from the blue; it was preceded by a chain of events that began with a falling-out with the Philippines over hydrocarbon exploration in the northeast region of the Spratlys.
“Joint development talks between China and the Philippines over gas-rich Reed Bank broke down in early 1994; in May, Manila decided to grant a six-month oil exploration permit to Alcorn Petroleum and Minerals.27 The Philippines was interested in collecting seismic data on the seabed southwest of Reed Bank. Manila hoped the contract would remain a secret, but news of the collaboration soon leaked. Beijing swiftly issued a statement reasserting its sovereignty over the area covered by the license and ignored Manila’s belated invitation to become a partner in the project. Manila back-pedaled on the diplomatic front for weeks, but the damage had been done. By secretly licensing an exploration effort the Philippines had appeared to engage in unilateral efforts to exploit the natural resources of the Spratlys.
“Stung by Manila’s ‘betrayal,’ China decided to advance eastward for better surveillance coverage of any Philippine-sponsored oil exploration. Mischief Reef is in the lower-middle section of the Alcorn concession; a presence there would also strengthen China’s hand were petroleum ever to be discovered in the area. The Chinese post on Mischief Reef was discovered by Filipino fishermen in February 1995, the advanced state of its buildings indicating that construction had begun in the fall of 1994, just a few months after Manila’s ‘faux pas.’ China had quietly advanced onto the reef because it believed physical occupation was the only method by which Chinese interests could be protected. Beijing’s own misstep was in not foreseeing that this characteristically ‘defensive’ response would be interpreted as offensive.
Mischief Reef is 21 nautical miles from Ayungin shoal also known as Second Thomas shoal (Ren’ai Reef to the Chinese), where a grounded BRP Sierra Madre serves as a Philippine Marines post. At least three Chinese ships are closely watching the activities in Ayungin shoal.
Philippine media reported jubilantly about how last week ships bringing supplies to the Marines in BRP Sierra Madre were able to get past the Chinese ships. However, it is obvious that the Chinese Coast Guard allowed them. And China can block the re-supply in the future if they want to.
Aquino and his officials would do well to remember the words of American writer Lois McMaster Bujold: “When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. When you desire a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.”
Related article:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/03/30/14/expert-case-vs-china-wont-be-slam-dunk-ph
Only ready with US help. Otherwise, we could only watch the Chinese, waive at them and make peace sign.
I would like to reiterate that China would think twice, thrice and even several times to attack the Philippines which she has maintained close relationship with for centuries. If it’s Japan which China hates the most, China would not hesitate to fire the first shot if she feels threatened or provoked.
Mannie, China will not attack the Philippine mainland. It will just occupy one of the disputed islands.
Please read the article.
I did read your article and I always enjoy all your columns. Do you agree that occupying one territory that belongs to another is tantamount to attacking? If might not direct military or physical attack; but the fact that China’s occupying one territory that does not belong to her and belong to the Phil is incursion and a threat to our sovereignty. And the current situation in Ayungin Shoal is one clear example.
malinaw naman ang pambubully ng china sa pilipinas. matapang sila sa maliit, bakit di nila kalabanin ang kasinglaki nila? mabuti na rin at dinala na natin sa UN tribunal ang usapin.
Excellent background regarding the Philippines “betrayal” of China on mutual exploration. The problem is, that China, in advancing her interests so aggressively has left the Philippines a very poor choice: be firm as a sovereign state to hold onto the economic values that UN laws say belong to the Philippines, or bow to China’s assertiveness and blurring of all reason as China consumes the seas right up to the beaches of other lands.
Here’s the deal: China is wrong and disrespectful in her wrongness. President Aquino is correct to file, as scheduled for months. That China did no real diplomacy during those months is testament of her nefarious scheming and blustering rectitude.
Assuming that the decision favors the Philippines, what’s next? How would it be enforced? Who shall enforce? Is China enforcing it? Even if the UN is asked to intervene and if it needs to enforce when the problem escalates, China is a member of the UN Security Council that has the power to veto. What does Phil have? Nothing maybe just international support and favorable public opinion. In the end, run to Uncle Sam again.
And to further frustrate the situation and pour cold water to the conflict, here’s another painful fact:
MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines should not rely on neighboring countries and allies for protection against China’s perceived encroachment on territories in the South China Sea, career diplomat Leticia Ramos-Shahani said.
“Our difficulty now is we are alone among the Asean countries. No one has really come to the rescue. Even Vietnam, which has been quite vocal, is just too scared of China to say ‘boo’,” Shahani said in an interview on ANC aired Sunday night. China and Vietnam have opposing claims over the strategic waters.
Shahani, a former senator and UN assistant secretary-general, explained that even if the Philippines co-founded Asean, China exerts influence over the 10-nation bloc as a primary trading partner.
“We do not have to wait for Asean because now it is quite obvious that they’re scared of China because of economic reasons,” she said.
Maganda ang naging desisyon ng Supreme Court na ibasura ang mga kaso patungkol sa pamilya ni Marcos. Dahil si Marcos na naging pangulo ng bansa ay hindi nagnakaw sa kaban ng bayan ng pera. Naka save pa nga ang bansang Pilipinas sa panahon ni Marcos dahil siya lang ang dapat na suwelduhan na mataas ang posisyon.
Ang pambubully ng China sa Pilipinas ay matatawag na karma para sa mga Pilipino. Sa ginawa ng iilan na tao ang lahat ay nakarma. Kung naipagpatuloy ang layunin ni Marcos walang China na mabubully sa Pilipinas. Ilan lang na tao ang nagpatalsik kay Marcos pero ang lahat ay nadamay. Naging walang direksyon ang bansa dahil nagkaroon na ng kalayaan. Kalayaan na gumawa ng gusto maging masama man.
Unawain na lang ang bansang China kung bakit nila ginagawa ang ganun sa Pilipinas.
From John Santos:
It seems the act of the Aquino administration against China over the 9-dash line that included what we thought is legally yours has created divisiveness even among Filipinos. Like you, ABS-CBN has concerns over the case filed by the Philippine Government. While that is both your right to disagree however, it is disheartening to see those individuals to have a different track of mind.
I doubt it if this administration are happy or glad to bring the case against China. Who wants to fight with the second powerful country in terms of their economy and military might. What else, can we do? Almost all inlets are occupied by China, surrounding waters are being watched 24/7 and they have a time table to see to it that by 2020 as reported everything is theirs. Not to mention, negotiations can and may take place but do you think China will hand over those lands just because we talked with them? As a professional reporter and investigator, do you even see any remote possibility that we will win any concession against China? In short, I find for column lacking and if you do write these kinds of columns then your reputation is way over your head
By the way, your writings mentioned the Mischief Reef and I do not know if it is true but the report I read is that it was the Chinese government that requested that we don’t patrol that part of the waters which the Executive acceded to and thus the occupation was done in a traitorous manner not by the Philippines but China.
Thank you.
John Santos
John, read the article carefully. I wrote: “As a sovereign country, the Philippines has every right to choose who to be friends with and who to take on. The Aquino government has chosen to battle with China.”
You have a problem with that?
My point is, are we ready for the retaliation of China? Are we preparing for it?
You have a problem with that?
What part of the article you find false and inaccurate? As a journalist, I tell the public the truth as I see it, both pleasant and unpleasant. If you or others see otherwise, you have also the right to believe in it.
ellen, ready or not, IT IS the right of every filipino see himself free from any threat coming from the outside AND it is the responsibility of the government leaders to be in the forefront in asserting and fighting for this right COME whatever consequence we might face.
we are not the ones who are asking for anything that would test our patience. it IS chinese!
and i agree with what you said our right to choose who to be friends with and who to take on BUT i must also yet to see HOW far this government would hold on its firmness in its decision in taking on china.
i just hope this is not like the common saying of ours “TIGAS titi”.
they were never “friends” to begin with. friends dont occupy other friends territories.
nagmukhang bad guy pa ang pilipinas. sila na nga ang inaabuso ng china… it’s like blaming japan for tensions in east asia.
i guess the philippines will be uncompromising on it’s rights and sovereignty the same way china is with regards to japan.
Berlin strongly rebuffed Beijing’s efforts to use Germany’s wartime past to shame Japan during Xi’s trip to Germany.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/germany-rebukes-chinas-anti-japan-pr-campaign/
ellen, china is not some benign country just trying to “rise peacefully”. it is a neighborhood bully, and the more people are clear eyed about this fact, the better.
The question and issue is: Are we ready to retaliate? That’s the main topic of this blog. My answer is no. It shall decades many decades from now to even match China. At this point, Uncle Sam’s only help is the solution; but would she help? Even Leticia Shahani, former diplomat and expert in international relationship, doubts if the US would help. ASEAN won’t even help. During the recent ASEAN meeting to discuss about China, Brunei which is a member did not join and instead met with China.
To show the arrogance of the Chinese even right here in our country, please read:
MANILA – An irate Chinese tourist allegedly punched a policeman Friday, after a Cebu Pacific (CebuPac) chartered flight to Shanghai was forced to return to the Kalibo International Airport due to low visibility.
A source from the airline industry said the policeman was trying to pacify the tourists who had allegedly “surrounded” the pilot and co-pilot upon their return to the Kalibo airport.
@ #16
Kaya nga dinala sa Korte.
Kung ano ang hatol ng tribunal dapat tanggapin ng Pilipinas.
Hindi pa huli ang lahat. Puede pa pagusapan ito.
# 18. No Mannie. The issue I raised is not, are we ready to retaliate?”
The point I raised is the title of this article?
Sana basahin at intindihin ang article.
I apologize, Madam Ellen. Just the same, my answer to “Are we ready for China’s retaliation?” is still NO. And the reasons I gave remain the same. Thanks for the correction.
#22. Retaliation is a strong word, we just have to defend our sovereignty, and there are many ways in which we can do that.
Wala nga tayong military might, but we have great diplomatic muscle. ergo, we cannot “retaliate” militarily, but we have other cards in our hands we can deal with, and that’s for the government to think about.
As for us Filipinos, we will defend our country’s sovereignty ready or not.
When I read how the filipinos fought during the foreign invasion of our country, I am awed and inspired because of their bravery and courage.
We were not really ready to take on the Americans then, but we fought and we fought hard, really hard…
and that’s what we’re going to do also when our sovereignty is at stake….
#24. I agree. However, bravery and courage are not enough to fight much more win a battle these days.
#25, with that, I disagree…
Look at the Vietnamese, Bravery and courage is what they showed the americans during the Vietnam war. They lost the Battles, but they won the war.
There’s nothing more powerful than defending your homeland from invaders. It brings out the best of one’s courage.
#25 I do respect your opinion, though.
Here’s one piece I copied from another person that makes some sense even if we disagree:
“The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the
surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983). By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.
But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?
So, what exactly was the territory Philippine declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of Philippine constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within Philippine declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did Philippine, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?
In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.
All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Philippine own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by Philippine Congress and approved in 1961, stopped Philippine from her claim.
On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.”
#27. From reading this, you can surmise this was certainly a rehash of the Mainland Chinese line.
But first point is this, if you look at the their ancient history, then they have a right to get Korea and Vietnam because of their old history. Why not go after them?
My second point is the 9-dash line is vague. When you have declared something that’s yours, especially properties, it is spelled out with latitudes and longitudes.
third point, Now back to modern times, we are governed by international laws and economic Zones should be respected by neighboring countries. Because the Chinese knows that we have a weak military, they are exploiting this one hole. But they miscalculated… We might have a weak military, but we have a strong case against it so they are threatening us now with all these consequences.
Now, to that, I would like to lay blame on our past leaders who let this happened. The effects of corruption and the years of muslim and communist insurgencies have left our military might lacking in all aspects of external defense.
What recourse does a superpower (member of the UN security council, like China) have if there is a decision against it? The case of Nicaragua versus the United States is instructive.
princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Nicaragua_v._United_States.html
Three w’s in front.
The lawyer of Nicaragua in that case was current Philippine lawyer, Paul Reichler. So he is a proven heavy-hitter. But even heavy hitters can swing and hit air, depending on the facts of the case. In that case, the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction, because of the express agreement of the US in the treaty forming the ICJ. There is no express agreement of China to this arbitration.
So first stop of the ITLOS, before the merits is, Does it have jurisdiction? Jardeleza says the issue of jurisdiction and merits will be decided together. Dream on. Even in the Philippine courts, a motion to dismiss takes precedence over other matters, and is resolved before trial is had.
Can jurisdiction be questioned without China submitting to the ITLOS’ jurisdiction? Yes. Even in the Philippine setting, you are not presumed to submit to jurisdiction if you appear only to question jurisdiction.
As Professor Stefan Talmon says in his paper (page 9)
What was that extra-procedural action?
Footnote 46 of Talmon
If that move is made in this case, we better have a good brief (memorial/memorandum) proving that the ITLOS has jurisdiction. The fact that Jardeleza tries to finesse the issue of jurisdiction stating that it is tactically beneficial to ask for adjudication of the merits and jurisdiction together, indicates that that may be our Achilles heel.
Professor Stefan Talmon’s paper can be found here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2393025
Jardeleza says in the UP seminar that he had not read the paper till that time. You better read it Dude. Know the enemy says Sun Tzu.
Pacquiao says he did not see Marquez’s punch coming. What is worse is if you refuse to look, like not reading a paper that may provide ammo against you. Marquez was able to deliver the punch because they studied Pacquiao well. When Pacquiao is excited and tries to deliver a knockout punch with his peppering style of punching, he leaves himself open. Watch the punch again on youtube. Pacquiao was wide open.
#28
You gave an excellent example of how law should be applied.
Yes, Vietnam and Korea were part of China and China will not claim them. That is because that China abandoned them explicitly.
In the case of South China Sea, China doesn’t abandon it. That is the difference.
But please be reminded that not all borders are defined by coordinates. In fact, a river, a mountain, a road, all can be used to define borders.
You know by nature the river is moving, that is why the border is moving too.
As for EEZ, it came after the 9-dashed line and UNCLOS respect historical title and fishing right.
It is not difficult to assign coordinates to the 9-dashed line at all. It can be done in 15 minutes.
But that is not the issue. The issue is that even the line is exact, PH theoretical EEZ of 1992 still overlaps China’s 9-dashed line claim of 1947.
Both sideds need to sit down and make a paln that both sideds accept, and that is what China expects PH would eventually do.
I wish to share this:
Historical Fiction: China’s South China Sea Claims
Here’s what respected former Singapore leader Lee Kwan Yew has to say:
MANILA — As the Philippines looks to a multilateral approach, specifically with the United States and the International Tribunal on the Law on the Sea, in resolving the disputes over the South China Sea, Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew believes the US will not risk its relations with China over the Philippines’ claims to certain islands in the disputed seas.
Mannie, I will have to cut your comments #33. Don’t reproduce articles here.Just put the link.
Please don’t do that again.
#30 The fact that Jardeleza tries to finesse the issue of jurisdiction stating that it is tactically beneficial to ask for adjudication of the merits and jurisdiction together, indicates that that may be our Achilles heel. – SnV
One of the lawyers close to the Philippine panel admitted they are concerned about the “jurisdiction” issue in the Philippine case vs China in the ITLOS.
You are right. Asking the Court to decide on the issue of jurisdiction and merits together is their way of managing that concern.
#35 Sorry Madame Ellen. It was a lapse in judgment. 🙂
Here is wikipedia on the Spratlys:
Score one for the Philippines – and Vietnam.
Score one for Vietnam – and Taiwan (China). None for the PI.
Score for Taiwan (China). Japan occupied and governed the Spratlys as part of the Japanese colonial government of Taiwan, not Japanese colonial government of the Philippines (with Laurel as President, and Benigno Aquino Sr. as Speaker of the National Assembly under Japan).
The surrender of Japan was formalized in the Treaty of San Francisco. So its occupied islands reverted back to China, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
The Spratlys is mentioned in the text of the San Francisco Treaty. Article II (f) of the Treaty states:
The Treaty of San Francisco was signed by 48 nations, including the Philippines. The Pinoy signatories were:
Carlos P. RÓMULO
J.M. ELIZALDE
Vicente FRANCISCO
Diosdado MACAPAGAL
Emiliano T. TIRONA
V.G. SINCO (Revered Dean of UP Law)
A pdf of the treaty can be found in the link below:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20136/volume-136-I-1832-English.pdf
China’s claim is predicated on the 200 mile EEZ to be computed from the Spratlys, which it treats as an archipelago. So it claims that it can have an EEZ of 200 nautical miles from the Spratlys, not from the coastline of Mainland China.
Whether valid or not, I hope that was addressed in the Memorial. The ITLOS, will certainly take judicial notice (cognizance by the Court, without need for introduction by any party) of UN Treaties, should it ever address the merits of this case.
Note, late comer daw si Tomas Cloma. Totoo naman. He claimed in 1956, after the Spratlys had been mentioned in an international treaty signed by 48 nations (in 1951), with the Philippines signing as well.
Kublai khan is not Chinese, therefore Scarboro should belong to Mongolia?
Who had owned the Spratlys prior to 1939? No one. Japan renounced Spratley and Paracel to the winning force, the Allies which China or Taiwan is not.
China was an ally – wikipedia, quoting
Ian C. B. Dear and Michael Foot, eds. The Oxford Companion to World War II (2005), pp 29, 1176
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
The Commonwealth of the Philippines joined after the Pearl Harbor attack December 8, 1941. China joined the day after, December 9, 1941.
Even if China did not join, the land reverts to France, which was claiming for its colony, Indochina (Vietnam).
We claim the Spratlys on the basis of the “discovery” by Tomas Cloma. Paanong discovered eh matagal nang hawak ng French? And the Japanese later used it as a submarine base in World War II. Ikaw (Cloma) ang ignorante man.
Assuming the validity of Tomas Cloma’s “discovery” there is another aspirant to succession to Cloma’s claim. The guy’s name is: drumroll please.
His Majesty John I King of Colonia St John and Prince of Mariveles and Amboyna
colonia.asia/government.htm (Tatlong w sa harap).
Here is that “Kingdom’s” version of history.
colonia.asia/history%20-%20the%20history%20of%20the%20kingdom%20of%20colonia%20st%20john.htm
The deed of cession daw by Cloma to Macoy was under duress. Sila daw ang successor ni Cloma. But the Kingdom’s secretariat is in Labuan (oops, Sabah na naman?).
Between the claim of “discovery” by Tomas Cloma, and the right of the Sultan of Sulu to Sabah (acknowledged by Malaysia with payment of rent to the Sultan), the latter seems to be a better claim before the UN.
So we duke it out with China, but appease Malaysia. Go figure.
Sinabi ko ba ignorante ka? The government of the Philippines knew about these shoals long before Cloma “discovered” it.
Sorry. I was referring to Cloma, not you. The fact that Cloma was claiming to discover land occupied by others shows his ignorance.
Read my post again.
#46. You sound like discriminating other posters here. I know that Madam Ellen usually responds to your post. You made it man. No need to mention something that’s already obvious. 🙂
The most informative read, to me, that favors the Philippine position is that piece by SCJ Antonio Carpio which I believe directs our focus on the conflict from those that the Chinese have been using to opt out of arbitration and some facts that China has trapped itself in after its previous published official admissions including ancient maps showing its southernmost baseline and its EEZ will never intersect our own EEZ granting even if paracel will generate its 200-mile EEZ thus does not fall under their explicit exclusions to arbitration.
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/52540-philippines-case-china-carpio
@TonGuE-tWisTeD
Thank you for this link. It’s very informative.
One thing that stuck in my mind while I was reading this is what Justice Carpio wrote, and I quote:
“First, UNCLOS extinguished all historical rights of other states within the 200 NM EEZ of the adjacent coastal state. That is why this 200 NM zone is called “exclusive” – no state other than the adjacent coastal state can exploit economically its resources. Fishing rights that other states historically enjoyed within the EEZ of a coastal state automatically terminated upon the effectivity of UNCLOS.”
Also, he discusses several points there that’s very impressive that tells us that we have a strong case.
Another point, I want to make is what I’ve been telling all along, you have to have latitudes and longitudes when staking a claim to a property. This is akin to a title if you have a stake to it.
As of now Indonesia is also questioning the 9-dash line because of its vagueness.
Between the claim of “discovery” by Tomas Cloma, and the right of the Sultan of Sulu to Sabah (acknowledged by Malaysia with payment of rent to the Sultan), the latter seems to be a better claim before the UN.
So we duke it out with China, but appease Malaysia. Go figure.-SnV #44
Really puzzling.