China has started the operations of a lighthouse in Subi Reef, The Chinese news agency Xinhua reported Tuesday.
Xinhua said the 55-meter high lighthouse contains technology to monitor passing ships.
The Philippines should be very concerned.
South China Sea looms large even if it is not in the agenda of the 23rd meeting of the leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation in Manila on Nov. 18 and 19.
Foreign Undersecretary Lula del Rosario, chair of the APEC 2015 Senior Officials Meetings, which did all the vital spadework for the Foreign Ministers Meeting and the Leaders Meeting, gave two reasons why South China Sea is not in the agenda.
First, the South China Sea issue is political.
Second, South China Sea is not common to all APEC members.
APEC is an organization of Economies, not countries (That’s why Hongkong is member separate from China. So is Taiwan.) Started in 1989, APEC’s primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.
Its 21 member economies are home to around 2.8 billion people and represent approximately 57 per cent of world GDP and 47 per cent of world trade in 2012.
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario’s dogged determination to pursue the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea dispute through the rule of law has proven his approach correct. The court ruled that the case was “properly constituted” under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that China’s “non-appearance” (i.e., refusal to participate) did not preclude the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the Philippines was within its rights in filing the case.
In the period before the ruling, there was a lot of pressure on the Secretary to dial down his stance and seek accommodation with China. While China has insisted on resolving the issue on a bilateral basis, the Secretary has maintained that this would leave us at a disadvantage and that in the instances where we tried to open dialogue, China has been unresponsive. That said, now that our hand has been strengthened, the argument in favour of the merits of seeking a peaceful, managed resolution has I think become even more persuasive. However, the responsibility of how to respond to this challenge will now have to be made by the incoming Administration. Unfortunately, the sounds currently coming from presidential aspirants or supporters of the aspirants reveal a misunderstanding of what the case is all about, claiming victory for our sovereign rights over the area. They have to get up to speed on the issue and determine the best way forward to protect the national interest rather than engaging in just nationalistic rhetoric.
No amount of China’s protestation that the Oct 29 decision of the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal is “null and void” and it has “no binding effect” on them, cancels the fact that it’s a major blow to them.
Filipinos, on the other hand, should understand that the U.N. Arbitral Court’s decision, although a win for the country, does not award the disputed islands and waters of Spratlys to the Philippines.
That’s precisely because that is not what the Philippines asked from the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal when it filed the case against China on Jan. 22, 2013.
Behind the provocative rhetoric by American and Chinese officials over the plan of the United States to test freedom of navigation in the South China Sea after China has reclaimed some 2,900 acres of land in the disputed waters, there are efforts by both countries to avoid war.
Especially hostilities breaking out over unintentional incidents as tension increase in the area claimed by China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.
The desire to avoid unintended hostilities is carried out in an agreement on between the United States and China militaries.
The accord was agreed by American President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on November 12 last year after the summit of Asia Pacific Economic Leaders Cooperation meeting in Beijing.
The Navy Times, the official publication of the United States Navy, reported last week that “The Navy is preparing to send a surface ship inside the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims for its man-made island chain.”
It said that the operation “could take place within days but awaits final approval from the Obama administration.”
It didn’t say which of the eight islands that China occupies in the disputed waters of the South China Sea the U.S. Navy is testing the 12-nautical mile limit to underscore freedom of navigation in the disputed waters.
Update:A Chinese military official warned that that the People’s Liberation Army would deliver a “head-on blow” to any foreign forces “violating” China’s sovereignty. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940258b2-7340-11e5-a129-3fcc4f641d98.html#axzz3ogWqjSe6
It is important to know where the U.S. ship would be going because of the eight features that China occupies and have expanded into islands, four are rocks and are entitled to 12 nautical mile territorial sea. They are Fiery Cross, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Scarborough Shoal just off Zambales.
Despite the fact that relations between China and the Philippines are bad, Chinese officials said “war is never an option” for China in resolving the territorial conflict in the South China Sea.
It is not in China’s interest to have an unstable South China Sea, said Tang Qi Fang of China Institute of International Studies based Beijing.
In a talk with members of Philippine media invited by China’s Foreign Ministry to mark the 40th year of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and China, Tang said if armed confrontation breaks out in the South China Sea, the loser will not be the Unites States. Not even the Philippines.
“It’s China,” Tang said adding that it’s because they have a lot of activities in the area.
The following article is a reprint from Want China Times
This part is interesting (6th paragraph): ” After a new president takes office in June 2016, the Philippines is expected to postpone the arbitration and step up bilateral or multi-lateral contacts with China.”
Staff Reporter 2015-04-26 09:23 (GMT+8)
The relationship between the construction of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road and the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is drawing increasing public concern along with the implementation of Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative. Observers wonder whether the disputes will produce a turning point for settling the disputes or whether the South China Sea will become the most likely area for potential conflict between China and the US. To answer the question, one should first dig out the exact crux of the disputes and then grasp the latest developments of related parties involved, particularly changes in China’s South China Sea strategies, according to South Winds, a bi-weekly magazine published in Guangzhou.
By Tessa Jamandre and Ellen Tordesillas
VERA Files
The planned activities are part of the soon-to-be signed “Joint Statement on the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership between the Republic of the Philippines and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” a copy of which was obtained by VERA Files.
In the strategic partnership agreement, which is considered a final draft until it is signed, the Philippines and Vietnam “reaffirm their commitment to resolve territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, as well as to the freedom of navigation in and over flight above the SCS (South China Sea) all in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”
In an interview with ANC, del Rosario once again held on to a pronouncement by an American official, this time Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who said the United States and many other countries “are deeply concerned about some of the activities China is undertaking.”
He must be referring to the intensified reclamations of China on reefs and islets that they occupy in the disputed South China Sea. They have not overtaken any island or reefs occupied by other claimants that include the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. But the reclamations and constructions are massive that the United States has described it as “Great Wall of Sand.”