US to China: We will protect Philippines

01:24 AM April 10th, 2014

BEIJING—In a face-off between the defense chiefs of China and the US, Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel told his Chinese counterpart on Tuesday that his country does
not have the right to unilaterally establish an air defense zone over disputed islands
with no consultation.

And he said America will protect Japan, the Philippines and other allies locked in
disputes with China, as laid out in US treaty obligations.

Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan said his country will not take the initiative to
stir up troubles with Japan, but warned that Beijing is ready to use its military if needed
to safeguard its territory.

Washington has criticized Beijing’s recent declaration of an air defense zone over a
large swath of the East China Sea, including disputed remote islands controlled by
Japan but also claimed by China. Hagel was in Japan earlier this week, reassuring its
leaders of ongoing US support.

In their remarks Tuesday, Hagel and Chang largely aired their countries’ well-known
positions about the territorial disputes, although it was the first time it was done in
China, shoulder-to-shoulder, after nearly two hours of meetings.

“Every nation has a right to establish an air defense zone, but not a right to do it
unilaterally with no collaboration, no consultation. That adds to tensions,
misunderstandings, and could eventually add to, and eventually get to, dangerous
conflict,” said Hagel, pointing his finger toward television cameras and photographers at
the back of the room, as shutters clicked.

Diplomatic resolution

Chang said China stands ready to resolve the disputes diplomatically. But he made it
clear that China is always ready to respond militarily to threats.

Chang also complained that the Philippines illegally occupies part of China’s islands and
reefs in the South China Sea.

He told Hagel, “We will make no compromise, no concession, no trading, not even a
tiny … violation is allowed.”

On a broader scale, the meeting focused on how the US and China can build stronger
ties, in the wake of years of frosty relations over Beijing’s military buildup, persistent
cyber-attacks by both sides, and the aggressive Chinese territorial claims.
Washington says it takes no side on the sovereignty issue of the islands but will defend
Japan and the Philippines. But it also has refused to recognize the air defense zone or
follow China’s demands that its aircraft file flight plans with Beijing’s Defense Ministry
and heed Chinese instructions.

Later Tuesday, at the People’s Liberation Army’s National Defense University, Hagel
gave a speech to about 120 colonels and other staff officers, and was more direct,
challenging China to play a more constructive role in North Korea.

Continuing to support the Pyongyang regime, he said, “will only hurt China’s
international standing” and its position in the region.

In the defense university speech, Hagel also pointed to cybersecurity as an area where
the US wants the Chinese to be more transparent.

As proof that the US has tried to be more open, he revealed publicly for the first time
that the Pentagon gave Chinese government officials a briefing on the doctrine that
governs the use of the military’s cyber capabilities. And he urged China to do the same.

Chang, when asked about the issue, said the People’s Liberation Army abides by the
law in its cyber operations and will not pose a threat to others. He added that China
“stands ready to deepen the communication with the US” on cyber.

Cyber attacks

The US accuses China’s army and China-based hackers of launching attacks on

American industrial and military targets, often to steal secrets or intellectual property.
China says it faces a major threat from hackers, and the country’s military is believed to
be among the biggest targets of the NSA and US Cyber Command.

While the disagreements between the US and China were starkly evident during the
day’s events, there also was an underlying current of slowly growing cooperation.

The two countries interests outweigh their differences, said Chang, adding that “The
Pacific is huge enough to hold both China and the US.”—Lolita C. Baldor

Beijing: So what if we lose in UN?

Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:05 AM June 6th, 2016

CHINA has said it expects a United Nations arbitration court to rule in favor of the
Philippines in the dispute over territory in the South China Sea, but the decision will not
change anything, as Beijing will not abide by it.

In a statement to US reporters posted on the Chinese foreign ministry’s website,

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said the case filed by the Philippines in 2013
“was not to settle any specific disputes, but to ask the arbitral tribunal to judge on
questions about the interpretation and application of the Convention (on the Law of the
Sea).”

“China does not accept or participate in the arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal has lent
a ready ear only to the Philippines. I think the award will probably be in the Philippines’
favor,” Liu told the US journalists who traveled to Beijing on May 19.

Incoming Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. on Friday said the Philippines would seek
help from “friends and allies” to persuade China to get to the negotiating table to
implement the decision of the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration.

“Even if we get a favorable judgment, or decision, from the arbitration court, there
might be some questions of enforcement or implementation of this decision because
the court does not have any enforcement capability,” Yasay said.

Ruling coming soon

The arbitration court in The Hague is expected to hand down a ruling in the coming
weeks, and China has embarked on a series of high-level meetings with its security
allies to win support for its position not to recognize the court’s decision.

The Philippines has asked the UN tribunal to invalidate China’s claim to almost all of the
South China Sea, and declare that its right to exploit resources in waters within its
exclusive economic zone should be respected.

Liu reiterated that China would not implement the award, and declared that the ruling
would not change anything.

“There is no agency entitled to act as the international police and award depends on
countries for recognition and implementation. This is the essence of international law,
which needs the respect from sovereign nations,” Liu said.

He also raised suspicion at the United States’ strong support for the Philippines’
arbitration case when it did not stand to benefit from it.

“We don’t understand why the US has been so active in backing the arbitration behind
the scene. As time goes by, I believe the plot will eventually come to light. In sum, the
arbitration initiated by the Philippines is dishonest and not based on goodwill. China will
not accept or participate in it, let alone to recognize the so-called award,” Liu said.

He said that once the arbitration court handed down its decision, “we can expect
propaganda by countries like the Philippines and the US about the award having binding
power for China.”

Liu stressed that China would make clear its position of not recognizing or accepting the
award and would justify why the award has no binding power.

Bilateral talks

But he said China would “stay committed to settling the South China Sea disputes with
the Philippines through negotiation and consultation.”

“We hope the next Philippine administration will adopt new thinking on the issue,” he
added.

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has said he is open to bilateral talks with China to solve
the territorial dispute.

But he has also said that the Philippines will never surrender its right over Panatag
Shoal, a rich fishing ground off the coast of Zambales province that China seized in
2012 after a two-month standoff with the Philippine Navy.

It was the loss of Panatag Shoal, internationally known as Scarborough Shoal, that
compelled the Philippines to submit its territorial dispute with China to the UN tribunal
for resolution.

Malacañang on Sunday said that more countries were supporting the Philippine case.

Speaking on state-run radio, Presidential Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma

Jr. said the petition brought by the Philippines was in keeping with the United Nations
Convention on the Law of Sea, which the Philippines and 165 other nations had ratified.

“The step taken by the Philippines continues to gather support from different
countries,” Coloma said.

No arbitration

At the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference in Singapore on Saturday, Rear Adm.

Guan Youfei, director of the foreign affairs office of China’s national defense ministry,
said China considered the Philippine case illegal, as “the territorial and sovereignty
disputes have not been subjected to arbitration.”
China has refused to recognize the UN court and stayed away from the proceedings in
The Hague.

The United States and other Western countries have said China should respect the
court’s ruling and stop its land reclamation in the South China Sea to reduce tensions in
the region.

Coloma said the Philippines would continue to keep its commitment to its allies to help
keep peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

“We affirm our shared commitment with the rest of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations and the United States that regional stability rests upon a foundation of
international law, rules and norms, and that there is need to respect the rights of all
nations regardless of size,” he said.

Comments:

1. upupperclassman -There are so much talks that UN Hague Arbitral Tribunal will
rule in favor of Philippines and the real facts do not point in this direction. 1)The case is
about arbitration. How can there be arbitration with only one party participating. The
Arbitral Tribunal will make itself a joke by making a ruling. 2) Philippines' sovereign
territorial limits are as defined in the 1898 Treaty of Paris signed by Spain and US. The
territorial limits do not include any island or reef or rock located at South China Sea. So
what disputes or competing claims can there be? 3) The 7 issues picked up by Hague
Arbitral Tribunal are not concerning sovereignty issues which the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction. How can there be economic zone without sovereignty? 4) Philippines has
made a serious misrepresentation that Itu Aba or Taiping island is a reef and not an
island. Itu Aba or Taiping is a self sustaining island with fresh water and farm produce
that can sustain life. The island has been under the control of Republic of China for
many years. Taiping is a real island that is entitled to 200 miles economic zones under
UNCLOS. There is only one China as recognized by UN. Only political motives can allow
Hague Tribunal to make a favorable ruling for Philippines. Should this be the case,
China can totally disregard the ruling of Hague as it is a joke with bad taste.

2. TheNewBisayaOrder - The moved by Pnoy to bring to the UN Arbitration was a

planned event . Just as the taking of the Kalayaan Island was planned by Marcos forces
in 1979 right after the UNclos was ratified. At the the time they were so confident they
can get away with it having the US navy at Subic while China coming out of post Mao
period with only a fledging brown navy that cannot stopped them . Inspite of China's
protest of their illegal occupation, they disregarded China's pleas. Now that China has
the blue water navy to effect its territorial claim they have to up the anti by going to
the UN tribunal
 A declining power such as United STates Inc has to make war to prop up the
petrodollar ponzi scheme that made them as the global dominant currency since 1974.
But since China and Russia are amassing gold reserves and dealing in their own
currencies, that is a direct threat to the petrodollar. Their domination of this world
currency could drop like a rock. Thus they wanted to poke China and Russia whatever
they could to trigger a war. Then they will blame them for firing the first shot so they
have the moral high ground.

United States Inc is highly likely will carry out another false flag in the SCS just
like the faux Tonkin Gulf Incident in 1964. Why are they so interested in the SCS after
all these years?? The TG incident was a total hoax by the Pentagon ordered by Pres
Lyndo B.Johnson (often referred to as LBJ/ 36th U.S. Pres) so he can intervene into the
Vietnam issue. It ended up costing America 60000 dead plus thousands wounded for
life . The war was one of the worst nightware for the American people but pure profit
for the Military Industrial Complex .

We dont care what happens to the Chicoms . That is their problem. We must
avoid war from happening . We know when the SHTF SHTF – ( Sh*t hits the Fan.
This means that some kind of catastrophic event has happened. ( natural disaster,
financial collapse, terrorist attack) TEOTWAWKI – The End of the World as We Know it.
WROL – Without Rule of Law A time when police, military, etc have lost control.) kicks
in we are toast. We will be like idiots who follow the pied piper into the cliff. That is
what these war freaks here who advocate the masonic masturbation of order out of
chaos.

The globalist controllers have engineered the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a divide and conquer strategy. Its in the masonic mantra
of Ordo Ab Chao, order out of chaos. They create the chaos so they can bring in their
own version of solution. But the underlying premise there is always chaos. Chaos is
what they do best. Then they have total control in the end.

US closely ‘watching’ Duterte, says expert

Philippine Daily Inquirer

01:18 AM June 8th, 2016

THE UNITED States is “watching very carefully” the moves of President-elect Rodrigo
Duterte, particularly during his first 100 days in Malacañang, and his reaction to the
much-awaited ruling of a United Nations tribunal court on the Philippines’ maritime row
with China, according to an expert of a US-based think tank.

“It is ironic that we are watching because if you ask leaders in Washington right now,
they would say the US-Philippine relationship is at a high point,” said Ernest Bower, a
nonresident senior adviser for the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies.

In an interview with the Inquirer on Monday, Bower ( Ernest Bower is a nonresident

senior adviser for Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. He is recognized as a leading expert on Southeast Asia. He is president & CEO
of BowerGroupAsia, a well-known business advisory firm he created and built.) said the
long-standing relations between the Philippines and the United States were even made
stronger during the Aquino administration.

“And the defense relationship is at least at a two-decade high,” he said.

No less than President Aquino and US President Barack Obama visited each other’s
countries twice, he noted.

“There is no reason to believe that a new leader of the Philippines would sacrifice all
those good things to move into a direction that would put the Philippines in a less
secure and less economically prosperous position,” he said.

Wait-and-see period

Until Duterte officially assumes the presidency on June 30, it is a wait-and-see period
for everyone else, Bower said.

“He’s been a mayor and he has said things in the campaign that gave people cause to
watch. But again I really think all we can do is wait and see who he puts on his team
and wait what he does,” he said.

Bower was among the speakers at a symposium on “Asia-Pacific Perspectives on

Implementing the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (Edca),” which was held
at National Defense College of the Philippines at Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City on
Tuesday.

The Edca is widely seen as important for the United States and the Philippines, a
staunch ally, as both nations are worried by China’s increasingly assertive pursuit of
territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea.

US-Philippine ties

Signed days before Obama visited Manila in 2014, the security deal will allow US troops
to build facilities to store equipment for maritime security and humanitarian and
disaster response operations, in addition to giving broad access to Philippine military
bases. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Edca in January this year.
Describing US-Philippine ties, Bower said “it is an old relationship, it is a treaty
relationship, it is a special relationship.”

“I think Washington values the relationship with the Philippines. I don’t think anyone in
Washington thinks a President of the Philippines would turn away from that alliance,”
he said.

Bower said the United States was not looking at Duterte’s unorthodox statements, such
as taking a Jet Ski to one of the contested islands in the Spratlys or his threat to cut ties
with Washington, which, he added, were part of campaign rhetoric during the recent
elections.

On Monday, the American expert gave a lecture on US policy and perspectives on the
developments in the South China Sea at the University of the Philippines.

The Philippines is awaiting a ruling of the UN arbitral court this month on a case it filed
last year, questioning the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim over the South China
Sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

That Duterte is seemingly warming up to China does not bother Bower.

Elements of story

“I think the proof is really in the pudding. In other words, what we are watching is who
he selects to be in his Cabinet. What his first 100 days would look like, what actions he
takes particularly around things like the response to the arbitral case in The Hague,”
Bower said.

“Those are things that will tell the story. I don’t put too much stock in the things that
he said recently,” he added.

Duterte has appointed Perfecto Yasay, a lawyer and former chair of the Securities and
Exchange Commission with no background in foreign policy and diplomacy, as acting
foreign secretary for one year until Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano takes over.

The law prohibits the incoming President from immediately appointing Cayetano, his
running mate, who lost heavily to Leni Robredo in the May 9 elections.

Retired Maj. Gen. Delfin Lorenzana’s designation as the next defense chief is considered
to be a silver lining in what is apparently a shallow bench in the security cluster of the
Duterte Cabinet. Lorenzana served as a defense attaché to Washington.

South China Sea tribunal has no legal validity

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Tuesday, 28 June 2016 00:00
 Leading international law experts said any verdict by the Arbitral Tribunal on the
South China Sea have no legal validity at a seminar on the South China Sea
Arbitration and International Rule of Law in the Hague on Sunday.
Any verdict by the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea will not have any
legal validity, simply because the related parties have not all entered into an
agreement to authorize the Hague-based arbitration body as a go between in the
dispute, a host of veteran law experts said.
The experts, some of whom even drafted the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLoS), discussed the issue at a seminar on the South China
Sea Arbitration and International Rule of Law in the Dutch city, where the
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)’s Arbitral Tribunal is assessing the dispute
case filed unilaterally by the Philippines. The experts spoke to China Daily at the
sidelines of the one-day seminar, organized by Leiden University’s Grotius Center
for International Legal Studies and Wuhan University’s Institute of Boundary and
Ocean Studies from Central China.
 They said the PCA had no jurisdiction on the sovereignty dispute under the
framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLoS).
They also said the related parties had not entered into an agreement to allow the
tribunal to conduct such arbitration.
According to them, these are two essential preconditions for the PCA to exercise
the arbitration.
“So China has held the right stances of non-participation and non-acceptance in
the dispute arbitration, which has been stirred up mainly due to the geopolitical
strategy of other powers in the region,” said Abdul Koroma, former judge of the
International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,
based in the Hague.
Koroma said the PCA didn’t obtain an agreement from the related parties to
conduct the arbitration, which is a precondition required under United Nations
law.
“On this case, the Arbitral Tribunal has no such authority simply because not all
of the related parties have agreed to authorize in invoking the arbitration,” said
Koroma, who was previously the Sierra Leone ambassador to the United Nations
and European Union.
“Only the Philippines has filed the case of arbitration and it is one-sided,” he
added. “So there is a lack of authority, in accordance to the international law.”
For China, the South China Sea has been owned by China since ancient times
and that the Philippines and Vietnam have occupied some islands and reefs in
the region.
China has repeatedly insisted that the related parties should solve the dispute
through negotiations, but the Philippines initiated the South China Sea arbitration
against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in early 2013.
“It is right for China not to accept arbitration and any verdict of the PCA,”
Koroma said. “This is very clear.”
Koroma said he was echoing calls from other experts attending the seminar,
insisting the international law should not be used for some countries to achieve
their objectives of foreign policies.
At the seminar, many experts have opposed efforts by the US, which is not a
direct party involved in the South China Sea issue, to support the Philippines in
the region to achieve its foreign policy goals of realizing a strategic re-balance in
the Asia-Pacific region, by containing China.
“The United States should not get involved because it is not a direct stakeholder
in this issue. I suggest that this is an issue for the countries in the regions to
seek solutions through negotiation,” said Tom Zwart, a School of Law professor
at the Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
Zwart said he didn’t mean to take sides in the dispute but he insisted that the
United States should not use the rule of international law to serve its foreign
policy agenda, because in recent years the country had returned to the Asia-
Pacific region to boost its strategic presence.
“Instead, I believe the best way is to go back to thr negotiation table in an Asian
way,” said Zwart, who worked as senior counsel to the Dutch deputy prime
minister.
He said that from historic perspectives, China and the Asian countries had for
centuries been sorting out their differences in a way which was mutually
agreeable, and that they would still be able to do so for centuries more.
“Regarding to the complexity of this dispute, with so many parties and interests
involved, you could not deal with it within a framework of the UNCLoS, because
the treaty does not offer procedures to solve the problem,” Zwart said. “So China
and its neighbors must sit down to discuss the solutions by themselves.”
Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju is a famous international lawyer who has served as
chief legal adviser in India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He says China has a lot of
evidence to indicate its ownership of the islands and reefs in the South China
Sea.
“I am very glad that Chinese experts have brought so much ancient evidence
and materials to show its ownership and jurisdiction of the South China Sea at
the seminar, which will help people know more about what the case is about,”
said Pemmaraju, who is also chair of the UN International Law Commission.
“There should be nothing short of this.”
But he said the problem was that some documents were in Chinese and it took
more time for people like him to know more about the truth behind it.
“This is the beginning of dialog and this will help the Philippines understand the
reasons behind China’s stances on the dispute,” Pemmaraju said. “Then
eventually, the case will be sorted out as the related parties know more the
origins.”
He has called for more confidence and trust building among the Asian
communities because historically, the countries had been colonies of the West.
“And now we are developing countries and we have many poor people in China,
India and the Philippines,” he said. “We have to show our sympathy to each
other. We have long way to go and we must save energy and focus on
development.”
Pemmaraju said China now had played a big and responsible role in the world.
“China has not brought trouble to anybody else and China has a great stake in
peace,” he said.
At the sidelines of the Sunday seminar, Nico Schrijver, academic director of the
Leiden University’s Grotius Center for International Legal Studies, said the big
powers, such as the United States, should be prevented from getting involved in
the South China Sea disputes and these should be solved by the claimant
countries.
“China has very long tradition of peaceful settlements of international disputes
and we could like to learn from China,” said Schrijver, who is professor of peace,
human rights and sea dispute settlement. “Maybe I am the only one born in the
sea level today and the sea is so important for us and you have to cooperate
with your neighbors.”
Abraham Sofaer, senior fellow at the Stanford University Hoover Institution in the
US, said arbitration, raised by the Philippines but refused by China, has brought
a lot of difficulties and anxiety, which were not good for any parties.
“We (The US) should be more responsible in talking to our ally and get back to
the status quo and get this dispute resolved in a peaceful way,” Sofaer said,
adding that the dispute between China and the Philippines had let him know the
limits of international laws.
Sofaer said the public in the United States could not easily access balanced
reporting from the media, as they intended to play up conflict. “It is happening
every day in the South China Sea dispute, which has been reported as a
negative, counterproductive, aggressive action from China,” Sofaer said, adding
that it was misleading.
Sofaer suggested the related parties should learn from the wisdom of late leader
Deng Xiaoping’s in calling for assuming sovereignty and setting issue aside to
pursue the joint development.. “We should pursue such call,” said Sofaer.
“And the US should convince its ally to curb the harm its litigation has caused by
finding a way to restore the status quo with China at a bargaining table,” he
said. “And I believe it will withdraw the appeal to the arbitral tribunal because
the judgments of tribunal could not be enforced finally.”
Voices of China’s scholars
Hu Dekun, Dean at Wuhan University’s China Institute of Boundary and Ocean
Studies, said China can offer mountains of documents, records and historic
heritages to prove that since ancient times, Chinese people had discovered and
used the South China Sea islands and reefs.
“Our ancestors have been fishing and trading on the regions and successively,
China has owned the sovereignty and has been exercising jurisdiction over the
South China Sea islands,” Hu said.
Despite the Philippines and the Vietnamese occupying some islands in the South
China Sea, China has refrained from raising disputes. “But in the recent years
 since the United States has returned to the region, the Philippines has begun to
claim the sovereignty of the islands, which are owned by China, and this is the
very nature of the dispute,” Hu said.
But Liu Huawen, assistant director at the Institute of International Law of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said China had enough legitimate rights
under international law to refuse to accept the arbitration, which was unilaterally
initiated by the Philippines.
The tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Philippines’ territorial claims to several
islands or rocks, because in ratifying the UNCLoS in 2006, China had the right to
opt out of various clauses. It did so for compulsory arbitration of maritime
boundary delimitation and historical rights by the tribunal.
“So I think any verdict from the tribunal is invalid and the Philippines should
come to negotiation table with China to solve the dispute and the US should stop
from help escalating intentions in the region right now,” Liu said. from China
Daily reports

Arbitration cannot solve S. China Sea dispute—Austrian expert

 Written by Mario J. Mallari

 Thursday, 30 June 2016 00:00

VIENNA — An Austrian expert has ruled out arbitration as a way to solve the South
China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines..
“It is a principle of international law that all sides must agree on the arbitration,”
Padraig Lysaght said in a recent interview with Xinhua. “Otherwise, the result of the
arbitration is not binding.”
Manila filed in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the Netherlands, an
arbitration case against Beijing over South China Sea disputes in January 2013.
It is expected to soon deliver a verdict on the case but China maintains that the tribunal
has no jurisdiction over the case, and insists that it will not abide by the decision.
“It is perfectly legal to simply not accept this award. I don’t think the award can solve
the problem,” Lysaght said, adding modern international law cannot provide a suitable
solution to every problem.
Lysaght also stressed historical arguments should not be completely discarded in the
South China Sea dispute.
“Many arguments in the dispute over the South China Sea islands are based on
historical events,” Lysaght told Xinhua.
In the Ming Dynasty, China was an influential power in the South China Sea, he said.
“Not in a military way, but culturally. All neighboring countries have been culturally
influenced by China.”
“Old cartography mapping these islands does exist. The oldest of these maps are clearly
Chinese. Even Vietnam or the Philippines uses ancient Chinese maps for their
arguments,” he said.
Currently, one of the problems is that not only the littoral ( on or near shore zone
especially in the high and low tide mark) states but also the United States are involved
in the dispute, according to Lysaght.
“The United States sees its hegemonical claims in this area challenged,” Lysaght said.
Lysaght said military actions in the area could be interpreted as provocative, adding, “It
is not necessary to provoke each other.”
What is positive in the dispute is that all littoral states have agreed on a code of
conduct, Lysaght said, referring to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the
South China Sea signed between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
in 2002.
Meanwhile, outgoing Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin yesterday admitted that the
South China Sea (West Philippines Sea) dispute with Beijing was the most challenging
issue he handled during his six-year stint at the defense portfolio.
“The most difficult is the China issue because we don’t know how to tackle it…there
were debates,” said Gazmin during his farewell visit to the Defense Press Corps.
But he expressed hopes that the issued would be resolved “peacefully and fairly.”
Under the Aquino administration, China has established de facto control over Panatag
Shoal off Zambales and conducted massive development in at least six contested areas
in the Kalayaan Islands Group or the Spratlys.
Gazmin admitted that there were times that he wanted to quit but his “close
attachment” with President Aquino and his family prevented him.
“I know he is doing his best and that has been my vow — to help him. That is why two
years went on to six years. It would have been a very easy way out…but it was hard to
leave because he has so many problems, why should I add,” Gazmin said.
Within Gazmin’s six-year term, the DND-AFP acquired brand new lead-in jet fighters,
medium-lift aircraft, combat utility helicopters, warships, including the brand new
strategic sea vessel BRP Tarlac –now the biggest ship of the Navy, armored tanks, and
modern force protection equipment for soldiers, among others.

China’s Xi talks tough ahead of tribunal ruling

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Saturday, 02 July 2016 00:00
 BEIJING — China will never compromise on sovereignty, President Xi Jinping said
Friday ahead of an international tribunal ruling over Beijing’s maritime claims, as
he celebrated the Communist Party’s 95th anniversary.
The ruling party must maintain absolute power in the country, strengthen its
military and enhance its role on the world stage, Xi told serried ranks of top
officials in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, to rapturous applause.
“No foreign country... should expect us to swallow the bitter pill of harm to our
national sovereignty, security or development interests,” Xi said, adding: “We are
not afraid of trouble.”
His remarks come as regional tensions rise over Beijing’s claims to nearly all of
the South China Sea, with the US sending naval patrols close to artificial islands
Beijing has built in the disputed waters.
Xi took an apparent stab at the US, saying: “We will not show up at other
people’s front doors to flex our muscles. That does not show strength or scare
anyone.”
An international tribunal in The Hague will rule on July 12 in a case brought by
the Philippines challenging China’s claims in the strategic waterway.
Beijing insists that the Permanent Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction over the
issue and has boycotted the proceedings.
Since assuming the party’s top post in 2012, Xi has rapidly consolidated power
while overseeing a more assertive foreign policy and a tighter authoritarian
stance at home.
No reason to fear China—Yasay
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. advised caution
yesterday on giving statements that are provocative in manner to avoid tension
in the South China Sea dispute in view of the upcoming Tribunal decision on July
12.
“We should make our statements in a manner that will not be provocative nor
exacerbate tensions especially when the ruling could be in favor of the
Philippines,” he said.
This was said after raising uncertainties during President Duterte’s televised
cabinet meeting on the possible actions China may undertake once the
Permanent Court of Arbitration awards its ruling. In the meeting he pointed out
that “if in the face of this circumstances China will dig in and put us to a test,”
there’s a probability that China “will disallow again our fisherman from fishing
into Scarborough Shoal.” He advised caution and said that the immediate action
we must make is to study the ruling’s implication since there are still lots of
nuances that we do not know as yet.
Yasay clarified that these uncertainties do not illustrate fear.
“I do not see any reason to be afraid of China. Why do you think the Philippines
should be afraid of China?,” he added, saying that while “there is always a
possibility that China might take more aggressive action in so far as its reaction
to the decision of the tribunal, especially if it would be in favor with the
Philippines. There is also a possibility that China will not do so because it has
assured us of its relationship of goodwill with us.”
On peaceful negotiations
Yasay noted that which is left for us to do is to pursue peaceful negotiations as
far as our claims are concerned because the international community is only
limiting itself to keeping the disputed area free for navigation.
Since almost 60 percent of the world trade go through that area, the
international community is only in it for its own national interest.
“In so far as our claim is concerned, we are just really asking the arbitral tribunal
to declare what are our rights on our exclusive economic zone concerns,” he
said.
The upcoming decision of the arbitration which will be handed down by July 12
will rule on the legality of China’s nine-dash line claiming 90 percent of the South
China Sea.
Yasay said that whether or not it will favor the Philippines or it would be
favorable to China, “we will respect the decision of the arbitral tribunal because
we adhere to international law and our firm commitment to the rule of law.”
DU30’s approach commendable—Roque
Kabayan Partylist Rep. Harry Roque said President Duterte’s approach to the
territorial disputes with China is commendable.
“I strongly agree with the President’s diplomatic thrust in our manner of dealing
with the coming of the arbitration ruling,” the veteran international law expert
said in a media forum.
Roque stressed that the Philippines should await the decision from all sides
instead of being arrogant knowing that there were loopholes in the country’s
argument.
“No matter what the ruling is, the Philippine government should still make efforts
to talk with them (China),” he said.
Roque assailed former President Noynoy Aquino’s manner of not talking with
Beijing at the time that the issue was a hot potato.
“Noynoy’s style was wrong. He wasn’t objective and confident in an argument
that lacked essential points which China can capitalize or perhaps is reserving as
a bombastic argument,” the new congressman emphasized.
Yasay articulated at the first cabinet meeting convened by President Rodrigo
Duterte that Malacañang should not issue a strongly worded statement.
Yasay bared worries that China might “dig in and put us to a test” given the
apparent loopholes of the country’s case filed last year.
Apparently cautious, Yasay noted that the country should welcome the said
ruling in a way that will not make the country look aggressive and afraid at the
same time.
“I am averse to that idea and I have told them in no unmistakable terms that the
first thing that we will do when we get the decision is to study its implications
and its ramifications, what does it mean if we win,” Yasay said.
The new foreign affairs chief insisted the priority of the international community
is the freedom to navigate as Beijing’s claims overlap exclusive economic zones
(EEZ).
Duterte, for his part, maintained his wish to settle the disputes diplomatically.
“We have to solve some of the problems that would involve violence. As for me,
I do not want it. God knows I do not really want to declare any fighting with
 anybody. If we can have peace by just by talking, I would be very happy,” the
President said.
He also warned that there should be no gloating, should the arbitral tribunal rule
in the Philippine’ favor.
Chinese wisdom
In his speech, Xi heaped praise on the ruling party and vowed to maintain the
country’s centralized Communist-led political system.
“All party comrades must remember what we are constructing is socialism with
Chinese characteristics, and not any other ideology,” he said.
The Communist party, which had some 88.7 million members at the end of last
year, must maintain “absolute leadership,” he said.
Xi has won popularity with a much-publicized anti-corruption campaign that has
claimed the scalps of several former top-ranked officials.
“The biggest threat to our ruling party is corruption,” he said, calling for a
“complete purification of the party’s political environment.”
He credited the Communist party with expelling “imperialism” from Chinese soil,
and stressed the country’s economic growth in recent decades.
He stressed the need for “Mao Zedong thought” but did not refer to the tens of
millions killed in famines and political campaigns launched by the founder of the
People’s Republic.
The speech contained more than 20 references to “Marxism” and was followed
by a rendition of the left-wing anthem “The Internationale” by a brass band.
He also issued a warning to Taiwan’s newly elected Beijing-skeptic President Tsai
Ying-wen — saying: “we will resolutely oppose all Taiwanese separatist forces.”
Shortly before the ceremony began, a Taiwanese warship mistakenly launched a
supersonic “aircraft carrier killer” missile toward the mainland, which landed in
the Taiwan Strait, Taipei’s navy said.
Xi vowed to “build, in line with our global status and in accordance with national
interests, a strong army and consolidate national defense.”
He also said that China would take an active role in what he called “global
governance”, suggesting it was seeking a weightier role in international affairs.
Xi added: “China will actively participate in building a global governance system,
and will contribute Chinese wisdom to perfecting such a system”.
 AFP, Joyce Ann Rocamora and Ted Tuvera

UN court dashes China’s nine-dash line claim

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Wednesday, 13 July 2016 00:00
 BEIJING LIVID, REJECTS RULING
 By Ted Tuvera
and Joyce Ann L. Rocamora

China has no legal basis to claim “historic rights” to islands in the South China
Sea and has violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights, The Hague-based
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said yesterday in a much anticipated ruling
that basically rejected the nine-dash line territorial claim of Beijing.
The tribunal’s ruling risks stoking further tensions in Southeast Asia as China
immediately rejected the decision of the United Nations (UN)-backed court. The
court’s ruling surprised many in its tone that offered no compromise to China and
which was described as “hard-hitting.”
“The tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic
rights within the sea areas falling within the ‘nine-dash line’,” PCA said in a
statement.
“China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the exclusive economic
zone by interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, by
constructing artificial islands and failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from
fishing in the zone,” the PCA said.
The Philippines, which had lodged the suit against Beijing in 2013, welcomed the
ruling but China reacted furiously, saying it “does not accept and does not
recognize” the decision.
Beijing had refused to participate in the case, saying the tribunal had “no
jurisdiction” over the issue.
Beijing claims most of the South China Sea, even waters approaching
neighboring countries, as its sovereign territory, basing its arguments on Chinese
maps dating back to the 1940s marked with a so-called “nine-dash line”.
Beijing “does not accept and does not recognize” the ruling on its dispute with
the Philippines over the South China Sea, the foreign ministry said in a statement
on its website.
“The award is null and void and has no binding force,” the ministry said. “China
neither accepts nor recognizes it.”
Beijing “does not accept any means of third party dispute settlement or any
solution imposed on China,” it added, reiterating its long-standing position on the
dispute.
China has repeatedly denied the tribunal’s authority to rule on the dispute with
the Philippines over the strategically vital region, claiming that the court’s actions
are illegal and biased against it.
Beijing refused the opportunity to defend its position before the body.
“China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South
China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards,” the
statement said, adding that “China opposes and will never accept any claim or
action based on those awards.”
But in its hard-hitting ruling, the PCA said Beijing “had no historic rights to
resources in the waters of the South China Sea” and that “such rights were
extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic
zones provided for in the Convention”, referring to the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLoS).
The tribunal further ruled that the disputed Spratly islands “cannot generate
maritime zones collectively as a unit” as claimed by China.
The tribunal said it examined the historical record to determine whether China
actually had historic rights to resources in the South China Sea prior to the entry
into force of the UNCLoS.
“The Tribunal noted that there is evidence that Chinese navigators and
fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the
islands in the South China Sea, although the Tribunal emphasized that it was not
empowered to decide the question of sovereignty over the islands,” it said.
However, the Tribunal considered that prior to the Convention, the waters of the
South China Sea beyond the territorial sea were legally part of the high seas, in
which vessels from any state could freely navigate and fish, according to the
decision.
“Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that historical navigation and fishing by
China in the waters of the South China Sea represented the exercise of high seas
freedoms, rather than a historic right, and that there was no evidence China had
historically exercised exclusive control over the waters of the South China Sea or
prevented other States from exploiting their resources,” the ruling said.
The ruling added that: “Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive
economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the
Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by interfering with
Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, constructing artificial islands and
failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.”
The tribunal said it also held that “fishermen from the Philippines (like those from
China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had
interfered with these rights in restricting access.”
The tribunal said it further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had
unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed
Philippine vessels.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of frequent military brushes between
China and its Asian neighbors, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and
Taiwan, which ring the waters believed to hold untapped oil and gas reserves.
The tensions have also alarmed the United States which has key defense treaties
with many regional allies, and in a show of strength last week sent warships to
patrol close to some of the reefs and islands claimed by China.
President Duterte had said he was optimistic of a favorable ruling, but offered to
hold conciliatory talks with China and vowed he would not “taunt or flaunt” any
favorable ruling.
Referring to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines contended
the “nine-dash” line had no basis under international law and that Beijing had no
“historic” claim to the waters.
Duterte calls security meet
Right after the release of the PCA decision, Duterte called for a meeting with his
security cluster and Cabinet members in Malacañang last evening.
Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Secretary Martin Andanar, in a text
message to Malacañang reporters, said that the meeting was called to discuss
the implications of the PCA’s ruling.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr., meanwhile, advised “restraint and
sobriety” on “all concerned” as a result of the PCA decision that favors the
Philippines.
Yasay has strongly appealed to all those concerned “to exercise restraint and
sobriety,” as he said that experts are already studying the PCA Award with
thoroughness.
Yasay regards the award as a “milestone decision” with an important
contribution to the ongoing efforts of addressing disputes in the region adding
that however states view it, “the decision upholds international law, particularly
the 1982 UNCLoS.”
Yasay said the Philippines will continue its efforts to pursue the peaceful
resolution and management of disputes “with a view to promoting and
enhancing peace and stability in the region.”
In a separate statement, Former Philippine Ambassador Lauro Baja said that the
challenge now for us is how to enforce the decision into some specific action in
order to manage the situation in the region.
“We have the advantage by pronouncement from a third party mechanism,
recognized by the international community,” Baja said describing the ruling as
country’s leverage.
“We should study the full implications of the decision and then through skillful
diplomacy, we must be able to leverage our success with China, with our other
allies like Asean, U.S., Japan, Australia and South Korea and leverage the
decision with ourselves,” he said, adding that “we are now given the space to re-
calibrate our approach on the issue.”
Andanar, however, said that the government’s official view on the ruling will
have to wait for about five days to give time for Solicitor General Jose Calida to
assess it.
“We shall wait for Solgen’s interpretation of the ruling. The Solgen shall provide
the president a synopsis of the ruling tomorrow morning and a complete and
thorough interpretation in five days,” Andanar told reporters.
Meanwhile, Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella also reiterated that, as of the
moment, they will still look into the implications of the ruling.
“Everything will have to be subject to a discussion. After all, it’s a lengthy
decision and there will be a number of details that need to be properly threshed
out before any statement is made publicly,” Abella said.
For international law expert and Kabayan Partylist Rep. Harry Roque said the
PCA decision represents a moral victory and not much of a material one.
“It’s a big win for Philippines but my view remains: It does not settle the entirety
of controversy as it did not rule on issue of title to disputed islands,” Roque said
in a text message.
“We still need to rely on negotiations but this win has brought us tremendous
bargaining leverage,” he added.
Fishermen from the province of Zambales particularly in Bajo de Masinloc were
among those who protested yesterday at the Chinese Embassy in Mamati City to
decry China’s “aggressive incursion that post threat to their livelihoods and
security.”
Fisherfolk group Pamalakaya cites that since China has occupied the Scarborough
Shoal, Filipino fisherfolk have been unable to fish in the waters where China is
doing its reclamation activities.
“Filipino fishers have all experienced the worst. They are the front-line casualties
of this maritime-dispute having nil support from the past administrations,”
Pamalakaya spokesman Salvador France said.
The Philippines made 15 Submissions before The Hague proceedings, requesting
the Tribunal to find that:
* China’s maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, like those of the
Philippines, may not extend beyond those expressly permitted by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;
* China’s claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to “historic rights”, with
respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the so-
called “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect
to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s
maritime entitlements expressly permitted by UNCLoS;
* Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf;
* Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations
that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf, and are not features that are capable of appropriation by
occupation or otherwise;
* Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the exclusive economic
zone and continental shelf of the Philippines;
* Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef (including Hughes Reef) are low-tide
elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf, but their low-water line may be used to
determine the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Namyit
and Sin Cowe, respectively, is measured;
* Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to
an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf;
* China has unlawfully interfered with the enjoyment and exercise of the
sovereign rights of the Philippines with respect to the living and non-living
resources of its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf;
* China has unlawfully failed to prevent its nationals and vessels from exploiting
the living resources in the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines; (10) China
has unlawfully prevented Philippine fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods by
interfering with traditional fishing activities at Scarborough Shoal;
* China has violated its obligations under the Convention to protect and preserve
the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal, Second Thomas Shoal, Cuarteron
 Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef, Hughes Reef and Subi Reef;
* China’s occupation of and construction activities on Mischief Reef violate the
provisions of the Convention concerning artificial islands, installations and
structures; violate China’s duties to protect and preserve the marine environment
under the Convention; and constitute unlawful acts of attempted appropriation in
violation of the Convention;
* China has breached its obligations under the Convention by operating its law
enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner, causing serious risk of collision to
Philippine vessels navigating in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal;
* Since the commencement of this arbitration in January 2013, China has
unlawfully aggravated and extended the dispute by, among other things:
interfering with the Philippines’ rights of navigation in the waters at, and
adjacent to, Second Thomas Shoal; preventing the rotation and resupply of
Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; endangering the health
and well-being of Philippine personnel stationed at Second Thomas Shoal; and
conducting dredging, artificial island-building and construction activities at
Mischief Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, Johnson Reef,
Hughes Reef and Subi Reef; and
* China shall respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines under the
Convention, shall comply with its duties under the Convention, including those
relevant to the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the
South China Sea, and shall exercise its rights and freedoms in the South China
Sea with due regard to those of the Philippines under the Convention.

Better Philippine moves

 Written by Ninez Cacho-Olivares

 Wednesday, 13 July 2016 00:00

No matter how the United Nations Arbitral court rules, whether favorable to the
Philippines and its claims, or a solomonic “award” benefiting China, the Philippines and
the World at large, what is clear is that negotiations must necessary follow — win or
lose for China and the Philippines.
As Rody Duterte has said, through his spokesman, Ernesto Abella, the Duterte
administration will prioritize the national interest regardless of the United Nations-
backed arbitral tribunal’s ruling on the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines
and China.
“The top priority will be the national interest,” Abella said in a news briefing hours
before the arbitral tribunal was to release its decision on the Philippines’ case against
the regional giant.
If one reads between the lines, The Hague decision won’t stop Duterte and Xi Ping from
establishing closer trade and economic ties, as well as banking on our Chinese neighbor
to build us the trains and other infrastructure the country badly needs. And for this, a
lot of talking will have to be done between the two leaders or between their emissaries.
The reason the Duterte government is not giving too much importance to The Hague
decision is probably the fact that Duterte is smart enough to realize that, despite a
favorable decision, that arbitral award is not going to serve the Philippines’ national
interest.
That same decision, however, will no doubt serve the interest of the United States,
which is not even a member of the UNCLoS and the European countries.
The US and its European allies are interested in a ruling favorable to the Philippines
because they will be using the so-called “international law” to ram though their own
interests. But if the Duterte administration will refuse to rock China’s boat, and not talk
tough toward China, that Hague decision may not serve the interest of the United
States since the Philippines appears not to seriously take The Hague ruling even if
favorable, as the country’s leaders are more serious about bilateral talks with China.
Since the Palace now speaks of serving the national interest, this would translate to
both countries sitting in the bargaining table, because as enunciated by Duterte even
during the presidential campaign period, the fishermen have to have the seas to fish
without being shooed away by the Chinese patrol boats, among other things economic
that redound to the Philippines’ national interest.
We are too powerless militarily and cannot afford to do battle with China, the economic
and military superpower in Asia and especially Asean, where the South China Sea
claimants are located. And even as the previous Aquino administration poured billions
into military modernization to have a “credible defense” the reality is that the country
can never have this, especially against China which has superior military power in Asia.
We won’t be able to catch up with China militarily ever.
Even Indonesia and Malaysia’s military power is superior to the Philippines.
The former President, Noynoy Aquino, believed perhaps that he could afford to be
confrontational with China, seeing the United States as its military ally.
Aquino would have plunged the country into war, where it won’t be America or China
that would be devastated but the Philippines, which will be a sitting duck in a battle
between the US and China.
But his perceived close personal ties with the Obama administration that has long
wanted to be a strong presence in Asia has resulted in Noynoy giving American soldiers
seven bases in the country, strategically located too, with the US claiming that the
foreign military troopers will be on a rotational basis.
There is, however, no way to check on whether these foreign troops are rotational or
not, and if truly rotational, how long a time do these troops ship out with their
replacements taking over?
Who is to know? Certainly not the Philippine government, given the fact that these US
soldiers do not pass through our immigration — and never had done, even without the
EDCA agreement.
If one looks at the situation objectively, with the US increasing its military presence in
the country and with its aim of becoming the only superpower in the world, it would be
logical for China to beef up its defenses in the disputed seas. If China didn’t build these
artificial islands, defense wise, it would leave itself defenseless against the United
States, should the US choose to militarily hit out at China.
Noynoy and his administration never thought about the consequences when he
strengthened the American hand in the Philippines when he could have played it
neutral, and reaped benefits for the country and the people by establishing very good
relations with both China and the US.
But from the way Duterte appears to handling the issue, he does think of the
consequences of whatever moves he will be taking, and it seems to be a more sound
move from the Philippines.
It is after all the Philippines national interest that must be served first. Always.

China warns against ‘cradle of war’ in sea

 Written by AFP and Tribune Wires

 Thursday, 14 July 2016 00:00

BEIJING – China warned its rivals Wednesday against turning the South China Sea into
a “cradle of war” and threatened an air defense zone there, after its claims to the
strategically vital waters were declared invalid.
Taiwan, for its part, sent its warship in defense of Taiwan’s “territory,” complicating the
South China Sea (SCS) dispute.
The surprisingly strong and sweeping ruling by a UN-backed tribunal in The Hague
provided powerful diplomatic ammunition to the Philippines, which filed the challenge,
and other claimants in their decades-long disputes with China over the resource-rich
waters.
China reacted furiously to Tuesday’s decision, insisting on its historical rights over the
sea while launching a volley of thinly veiled warnings to the United States and other
critical nations.
“Do not turn the South China Sea into a cradle of war,” vice foreign minister Liu
Zhenmin told reporters in Beijing, as he described the ruling as waste paper.
“China’s aim is to turn the South China Sea into a sea of peace, friendship and
cooperation.”
Liu said China also had “the right” to establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ)
over the sea, which would give the Chinese military authority over foreign aircraft. A
similar zone set up in 2013 in the East China Sea riled Japan, the United States and its
allies.
“Whether we need to set up one in the South China Sea depends on the level of threat
we receive,” he said.
“We hope other countries will not take the chance to blackmail China.”
The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, was even more blunt over
the ramifications of the verdict.
“It will certainly intensify conflicts and even confrontation,” Cui said in Washington on
Tuesday.
China justifies its sovereignty claims by saying it was the first to have discovered,
named and exploited the sea, and outlines its claims for most of the waterway using a
vague map made up of nine dashes that emerged in the 1940s.
Those claims overlap with those of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and
Taiwan.
Manila, under previous president Benigno Aquino, launched the legal case in 2013 after
China took control of Scarborough Shoal, a rich fishing ground within the Philippines’
exclusive economic zone and far away from the nearest major Chinese landmass.
Noy used as pawn by US--experts
For China, the United States was behind the Philippines, trying to stir up matters in the
South China Sea in order to block China and thus improve its regional military and
diplomatic presence, experts said, as quoted by China Daily.
The experts came up with the comments as the Hague decision was issued Tuesday in
the arbitration case unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government.
The administration of former president Aquino was used as a pawn by the US to aid its
Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy, they said.
Tao Wenzhao, a researcher of US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
said the arbitration was not solely the business of the Philippines.
“We can see that Washington, which never ratified the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, encouraged and supported Manila to initiate the arbitration case
from the very beginning,” Tao said, adding that top lawyers Manila hired were US
citizens.
Myron Nordquist, associate director of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy at the
University of Virginia School of Law, said: “Now the Filipinos are having such fun
making faces at China, hiding behind the US military, thinking they are really doing
something wonderful.
“If the US ever became a party to this agreement, we would have opted out, as the
Chinese did.” In fact, the US established the precedent of “non-participation and non-
acceptance” of a ruling by a third party to settle an international dispute in the
Nicaragua case of the 1980s.
Oskar Krejci, director of the Institute of Global Studies at the University of Jan Amos
Komensky Prague, said what the US is doing in the region is not acting as someone
trying to restore balance would act.
Instead, it acts as a purveyor of “a military presence strategy, and therefore is making
an effort to maintain US hegemony in the region”, Krejci said.
If the situation in the South China Sea intensifies, the US will have more excuses to
increase its military deployment in the Asia-Pacific, an important part of its rebalancing
policy, Tao said.
‘No legal basis, unlawful’
Aside from stating that China’s historical rights were without “legal basis”, the tribunal
ruled that its artificial island building and the blocking of Filipino fishermen at
Scarborough Shoal were unlawful.
But the Philippines, under new President Duterte, declined to celebrate the verdict,
saying on Tuesday only that it welcomed the ruling while calling for sobriety and
restraint.
Duterte has repeatedly said he wants to improve relations with China, which plummeted
under Aquino because of the dispute, and that he would seek Chinese investment for
major infrastructure projects such as a railway for the impoverished southern
Philippines.
His Foreign Minister, Perfecto Yasay, told Agence France Presse in an interview last
week that the Philippines would seek to use the verdict as the basis for direct talks with
China aimed at achieving a long-awaited code of conduct among rival claimants for the
sea.
However China faced immediate pressure from Western powers, which insist they have
legitimate interests in the dispute because of the need to maintain “freedom of
navigation” in waters that hosts more than $5 trillion in shipping trade annually.
The United States emphasized on Tuesday that China, as a signatory to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should accept the verdict.
“As provided in the convention, the tribunal’s decision is final and legally binding on
both China and the Philippines,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters
in Washington.
Kirby called on all sides “to avoid provocative statements or actions”.
SCS ruling to intensify
conflct—envoy
Beijing’s ambassador to the United States made a blunt rebuke Tuesday of an
international tribunal ruling that rendered its claims in the South China Sea invalid.
China asserts sovereignty over almost all of the strategically vital waters, despite rival
claims from its Southeast Asian neighbors, most notably the Philippines.
The decision by the UN-backed tribunal in The Hague “will certainly undermine or
weaken the motivation of states to engage in negotiations and consultations for solving
their dispute,” Ambassador Cui Tiankai said.
“It will certainly intensify conflicts and even confrontation,” he added, speaking at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“In the end, it will undermine the authority and effectiveness of international law.”
The envoy also warned that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)’s ruling “will
probably open the door of abusing arbitration procedures.”
The row has embroiled the United States, which has deployed aircraft carriers and a
host of other vessels to assert freedom of navigation in the waters — through which a
third of the global oil trade passes.
Criticizing the American show of force in the region, Cui warned it could lead to conflict.
“Intensified military activities so close to Chinese islands and reefs or even entering the
neighboring waters of these islands and reefs, these activities certainly have the risk of
leading to some conflict,” he said.
“I am quite sure they will have the effect of destabilizing regional stability,” the
ambassador added.
“If armed conflict started, everybody’s interest would be hurt, including our interest and
I am sure the interests of the USA.”
The envoy blamed Washington’s pivot to Asia under President Barack Obama for
increased tensions.
“Tensions started to rise five to six years ago, about the same time we began to hear
from the so-called pivoting to Asia,” Cui said.
“Disputes intensified, relations strained, confidence weakened.”
‘Reputational costs’
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned China on Wednesday there would be
“strong reputational costs” for ignoring the ruling, as she called for an end to Chinese
island building.
“China seeks to be a regional and global leader and requires friendly relations with its
neighbors. That’s crucial to its rise,” Bishop told national broadcaster ABC.
China must accept a verdict declaring its South China Sea claims are invalid, Australia
said Wednesday, and needs to halt its artificial island building in the disputed waters.
Bishop said Beijing risked reputational harm if it ignored the ruling by the UN-backed
Permanent Court of Arbitration, on a case brought by Manila, which said China had no
title to the waterway.
“We call on both the Philippines and China to respect the ruling, to abide by it. It is final
and legally binding on both of them,” Bishop told national broadcaster ABC.
“This treaty, the Law of the Sea, codifies pre-existing international custom. It’s a
foundation to maritime trade and commerce globally, and so to ignore it would be a
serious international transgression.
After years of diplomatic headbutting, the Philippines took the case to the Hague-based
PCA in 2013.
“Australia has been calling on China for some time to halt reclamation work and not to
militarize its structures,” Bishop said.
“We certainly urge all parties to take steps to ease tensions, to refrain from provocative
actions that would escalate tensions and lead to greater uncertainty.”
Bishop said Canberra also reserved the right to sail ships and fly planes close to some
of the reefs and islands claimed by China.
“As we’ve done for many decades, Australian ships and aircraft will continue to exercise
rights under international laws of freedom of navigation and over-flight,” she said.
“We’ve already been doing that; we’ll continue to do it.”

Yasay calls on China to drop provocative statements

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Thursday, 14 July 2016 00:00
 By Joyce Ann L. Rocamora

Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr., may have ruffled
China’s feathers as he yesterday urged China to practice restraint in view of the
recently decided ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the South China
Sea dispute. China has been issuing strong statements, especially after the PCA
ruling favoring the Philippines.
In the historic victory last July 12, the PCA, in a clean sweep, issued a ruling
favorable to the Philippines invalidating most of China’s “historic claims” in the
region.
Yasay, commenting on the favorable ruling said he is trying to be circumspect,
adding that “we have always maintained that we have to be magnanimous in
victory. In very delicate matters like this you cannot be provocative in
statements.”
“We urge everybody, including China, to exercise restraint and sobriety,” he
stressed, advising the public and all concerned to see first how the decision will
be implemented since “the arbitral tribunal decision is final and cannot be
appealed.”
“Let’s wait for the interpretative opinion of our lawyers, and then we will be
submitting this to the President and the cabinet so we can chart the proper
course of action to take,” he added.
“We will not gloat about our triumphs. We are happy about it and we could not
be more than pleased about the decision of the arbitral tribunal but we must fully
understand it and wait for the interpretative opinion of our lawyers,” he pointed
out.
Yasay calls for unified
statement from Asean
In view of the upcoming 11th Asia-European Meeting Summit of Heads of State
and Government (ASEM11) in Mongolia, Yasay apparently took to heart the
international community, especially the US, when he urged the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to come up with a unified statement on the
matter of this ruling and the long-held maritime rows between China and its
members.
In an ambush interview he said that he “hopes Asean would come up with a
unified statement,” quickly clarifying that this is only stated in the context that it
will be important for the 10-bloc South East Asian organization to have a unified
statement.
But whatever the case may be, he noted that it will not change the position that
we have in so far as the decision of the arbitral tribunal is concerned, he said.
“The legal issue that has been resolved is there, it will not change whether or not
we have a unified Asean statement but the most important thing here now is
that we will see how we can peacefully implement the decision.”
Yasay said that the issue on whether the ruling and South China Sea dispute be
brought in the meeting is not for China to restrict.
This is in view of China’s demand to avoid discussing the issue in the ASEM11.
Yasay dismissed this, saying “our actions will not be dependent on what any
country would want us to do we will always be acting in the best national
interest.”
Indonesia details defense
plan after SCS ruling
Indonesia will sharply strengthen security around its South China Sea islands
where there have been clashes with Chinese vessels, the defense minister said
Wednesday, a day after Beijing’s claims in the sea were declared invalid.
In an interview with AFP, Ryamizard Ryacudu said bolstering defenses around
Indonesia’s Natuna Islands would involve deploying warships, an F-16 fighter jet,
surface-to-air missiles, a radar and drones, as well as constructing new ports and
improving an airstrip.
The military build-up, which started in recent months, would be completed in
“less than a year,” he said.
“This will be our eyes and ears,” the retired general said.
“So that we can really see what is happening in the Natunas and the surrounding
area in the South China Sea.”
Unlike several of its Southeast Asian neighbors, Indonesia has long maintained it
has no maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea and does not
contest ownership of any territory.
But Beijing’s claims overlap Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone — waters where
a state has the right to exploit resources — around the Natunas, and there has
been an upsurge in clashes between Indonesian patrol and navy boats and
Chinese fishing vessels and coastguards.
Indonesia has become increasingly irate over Chinese incursions into its waters
and after a clash last month, President Joko Widodo visited the Natunas on a
warship with his cabinet to send a message to China that Jakarta is serious about
defending the remote archipelago.
As well as the military hardware, Indonesia will send special air force and marine
task forces as well as an army battalion to the Natunas, once barracks and
housing have been built, Ryacudu said.
He insisted that Indonesia was not adding to the growing militarization of the
South China Sea, and suggested it had a right to defend its borders.
“It is our front door, why is it not guarded?” he said.
Use ruling as political
leverage—ex RP envoy
Former Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations Lauro Baja said it is for the
Philippines to convert the legal victory we received from the Permanent Court of
Arbitration Award into a political tool to achieve what was declared rightfully
ours.
“They were able to craft an approach in which they were able to separate the
question of sovereignty and maritime entitlements and that’s why I think the
panel was able to make a decision on the merits,” the former envoy said.
In accordance with the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea
(UNCLoS) the arbitral court superseded Beijing’s historic rights and jurisdiction in
the following: Scarborough Shoal, Gaven Reef (North), McKennan Reef, Johnson
Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef deciding a sweeping victory for the
Philippines.
The next question however is what we will do with the results, he said.
In a statement Baja explained as in any other legal document we need a political
document or a political step to implement the decision. “You cannot solve a
bilateral issue or an issue for that matter without talking to the other side, and
that’s the first step, to talk to China.
He noted that at this stage, the country should talk first with China and avoid
being provoked with its aggressive reactions toward the decision, saying “China’s
reaction is understandable, China feels that it has lost face, and to China it’s a
very big thing. We proceed to alternative approaches after all the efforts to do
bilateral with China are exhausted,” he added.
In the legal sense, it’s a victory for the country, “now it’s for the Philippines to
convert it into a political victory” he pointed out urging to use it as leverage with
China and allies like the US, Japan, Korea, Australia and others.
“The only option is diplomacy, it may be protracted, but as I say, diplomacy
never ends, you may fail in the first step, in the second step but you go on.”
Noy welcomes Hague court ruling
Former President Noynoy Aquino, who brought the dispute before the
international tribunal in 2013, said the PCA ruling only proved the validity of the
country’s claim against Beijing’s interventions after all.
“Where there is conflict over claims and opinions, cooperation cannot exist. Now
that the rules are even clearer, we can all move forward as a global community.
Without doubt, this long-running dispute is now closer to having a permanent
solution,” Aquino said in a statement.
“The decision to pursue arbitration was not an easy one to make. Going into
arbitration was called a game-changer. We foresaw and experienced the
pressures in taking this route; yet until the end, we stood our ground,” the
immediate past president added.
Secretary Yasay, in a radio interview, gave where due credit is due thanking
Aquino’s administration for pushing the case.
Fisherfolk can now fish
in the West Philippine Sea
 The PCA ruling jinking China’s nine-dash line claim on the whole of West
Philippine Sea is a victory for the Filipino people particularly the fisher folk.
Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque, a former professor on International law in
the University of the Philippines, said the ruling has outlawed China’s reclamation
projects in the areas that are exclusively within the 200-mile exclusive economic
zone of the Philippines.
He said that Filipino fishermen can enjoy fishing rights again at Panatag Shoal
(Scarborough Shoal) and that the Spratly Islands, as well as the Panganiban
(Mischief) Reef, Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal and Recto (Reed) Bank.
“This is a huge win for us because the UN Tribunal specifically cited the West
Philippine Sea features which are within our EEZ. This is important because
under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, only a coastal state
like the Philippines has the right to put up reclamation projects within its
exclusive economic zone. This means that China’s existing reclamation projects
and military bases there are unlawful,” Roque told House reporters yesterday.
“This ruling means that we will be free to benefit from fishing on our seas and
even search for natural gas,” Roque said.
Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo said Asean now should play a big role in ensuring
that the ruling is enforced even as he did not discount the role of the United
States.
“The US position, while relevant, is not the most important one. It is the position
of our Aseanneighbors that is more relevant in ensuring that the decision is
actually enforced,” Quimbo said.
Rep. Sherwin Tugna of the partylist Citizens Battle Against Corruption, for his
part, said that the United States could not have a stronger stand on the issue
following the ruling.
“I believe that the US will be bolder in siding with the Philippine government
because our legal position is upheld by the UN Tribunal,” Tugna said.
Incoming Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said China should reconsider its position not
to honor The PCA ruling junking their nine-dash line claim on the whole of West
Philippine Sea for the interest of greater majority and peaceful resolution of the
dispute.
Alvarez urged China “to respect the decision of the Arbitral Court and to adhere
to the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes in accordance with international
law,” reminding its officials that they are one of the signatories of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that guarantees a 200-mile
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
 With Gerry Baldo, Ted Tuvera and AFP

Root is misunderstanding
Written by Tribune Editorial
Thursday, 14 July 2016 00:00
In the part “The Tribunal’s Considerations” that forms the bases of the conclusion in
the 501-page award of the United Nations (UN)-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) on the South China Sea conflict, it was clear that the tribunal was pointing to the
need of a dialog between the Philippines and China to resolve what was implied as a
misunderstanding.
The PCA ruled as invalid the nine-dash claim of China that covered more than 80
percent of the South China Sea and that China “had violated the Philippines’ sovereign
rights in its exclusive economic zone.”
The dispositive portion of the arbitration case, however, suggested what China has
been demanding are talks among claimants without the interference of outside parties.
It was stated in the PCA ruling that “the root of the disputes presented by the
Philippines in this arbitration lies not in any intention on the part of China or the
Philippines to infringe on the legal rights of the other, but rather — as has been
apparent throughout the proceedings — in fundamentally different understandings of
their respective rights under the Convention (United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Seas (UNCLoS) in the waters of the South China Sea.”
“In such circumstances, the purpose of dispute resolution proceedings is to clarify the
parties’ respective rights and obligations and thereby facilitate their future relations in
accordance with the general obligations of good faith that both governments
unequivocally recognize,” the ruling stated.
The PCA ruling was particularly cautious in not handing out any directive on the
protagonists in the conflict.
“Going forward, it is a fundamental principle of international law that ‘bad faith is not
presumed’ and Article 11 of Annex VII provides that the ‘award ... shall be complied
with by the parties to the dispute,’” the ruling added.
It said “it goes without saying that both Parties are obliged to resolve their disputes
peacefully and to comply with the Convention and this Award in good faith.”
The US government statement issued through State Department spokesman Assistant
Secretary John Kirby injected a different tone in the aftermath of the decision saying it
will lead to “ultimately resolving ... underlying disputes free from coercion or the use or
threat of force.”
None of that, however, was contained in the ruling as the PCA only stated in its
conclusion “the Tribunal considers it beyond dispute that both parties are obliged to
comply with the convention, including its provisions regarding the resolution of
disputes, and to respect the rights and freedoms of other States under the convention.
Neither party contests this, and the Tribunal is therefore not persuaded that it is
necessary or appropriate for it to make any further declaration.”
China has refused to participate in the PCA proceedings saying that it does not
recognize from the start third party arbitration on territorial disputes.
The PCA, however, took note of China’s position in a paper submitted to the Tribunal
and its pronouncements through its several mouthpieces.
It said “in the course of proceedings, Chinese officials have made a number of
statements on the importance of good faith and the duties incumbent on States
pursuant to the Convention.”
The PCA cited the position paper China submitted which “emphasized that, pursuant to
Article 300 of the convention, State parties shall ‘exercise the rights, jurisdiction and
freedoms recognized in this convention in a manner which would not constitute an
abuse of right.’”
It further noted that on May 19, 2016, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi “spoke of China
acting in accordance with law and safeguarding the sanctity of the UNCLoS.”
In gist, the PCA in its ruling stated that rights have been violated but good faith existed
and the rift was the result of a misunderstanding.
Such a conclusion only pointed to the need of a dialog.

No concession to China — RP

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Saturday, 16 July 2016 00:00
 Philippine diplomatic and political ties with Asia’s economic and military
superpower China may remain tenuous, what with some officials of the new
adminis-tration, who are the alter egos of President Duterte saying that the
Philippines will concede nothing to China and will not sacrifice the Hague
Tribunal’s decision in bilateral talks with China.
Duterte’s foreign secretary, Perfecto Yasay, urged Beijing on Thursday to respect
an international tribunal’s ruling that rejected Chinese claims to most of the
South China Sea, and said it would raise the issue at a regional summit.
“Secretary Yasay will discuss within the context of ASEM’s agenda the Philippines’
peaceful and rules-based approach on the South China Sea and the need for
parties to respect the recent decision,” the Department of Foreign Affairs said in
a statement.
Yasay discussed the issue at ASEM meet.
The statement was the strongest response from the Philippines to Tuesday’s
verdict by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague declaring that
China’s claims to the resource-rich and strategically vital South China Sea had no
legal basis.
China vowed to ignore the ruling, saying the UN-backed tribunal had no
jurisdiction over the case and accused it of bias.
China said on Monday that the maritime dispute should not be included on the
ASEM agenda, with assistant foreign minister Kong Xuanyou insisting the
meeting was “not an appropriate venue” to discuss the issue.
But Yasay included it during the ASEM meet.
The ASEM summit brings together nations from Asia and Europe, including other
sea claimants Vietnam and Malaysia.
Strong words from RP
The Philippines will concede nothing to China as it seeks to implement an
international tribunal ruling against Beijing’s claims to most of the South China
Sea, its government lawyer said Friday.
The UN-backed tribunal on Tuesday ruled against China but Beijing rejected the
decision, warning of a “decisive response” to provocative actions against its
security interests based on the verdict.
The South China Sea arbitration will not shake China’s resolve to pursue path of
peaceful development said a State Councilor as quoted by Xinhua.
But in Beijing, Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi yesterday said the South
China Sea arbitration will not “in the slightest way” shake China’s resolve to
pursue the path of peaceful development.
Yang made the remarks in an interview with state media on the so-called award
of the Arbitral Tribunal for the South China Sea arbitration.
“To seek peaceful development is not a matter of expediency. It is a strategic
choice China has made in line with the trend of the time and its own
fundamental interests,” said Yang.
Yang said China remains committed to developing friendly relations with other
countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and
deepening win-win cooperation and connectivity with its neighbors.
China adheres to negotiation and consultation as a means for addressing
relevant territorial and maritime delimitation issues, and resolutely safeguards
peace and stability in the region, he said.
The Hague-based tribunal handling the South China Sea arbitration case
unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government issued its final award
on Tuesday, denying China’s long-standing historical rights in the South China
Sea.
In response, China issued two statements on July 12 and on July 13, a White
Paper entitled China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the
Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea,
stating China’s solemn position of non-acceptance and non-recognition of the
award and reaffirming China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and
interests in the South China Sea.
Stressing that China’s position on the arbitration fully complies with international
law, Yang said the basic fact has been thoroughly elaborated in a series of
position papers issued by the Chinese government.
“The attempt to mount an all-out smear campaign against China by distorting
this basic fact has once again exposed the nature of this arbitration, that is, a
farce in which certain countries use international law as a cover to pursue their
own hidden agenda,” said Yang.
In response to the role of some non-regional countries, Yang said the South
China Sea arbitration “is a case in point of how non-regional countries interfere
in the South China Sea issue.”
He said in recent years, certain countries outside the region, driven by their own
agenda, have frequently intervened in the South China Sea issue under the
pretext of upholding “freedom of navigation” and “maintaining regional peace,”
leading to an escalation of tension.
“Such highly irresponsible moves have become the major source of risks that
affect peace and stability in the South China Sea,” Yang said.
The South China Sea issue is an issue between littoral countries and should be
left to the countries concerned to resolve through peaceful negotiations, Yang
said.
He said China has never rejected the legitimate rights and interests of non-
regional countries in the South China Sea, calling on relevant countries to respect
the independent choice of China and its neighboring countries in the South China
Sea and do more to facilitate sustained peace and stability in the region.
On the China-Philippines ties, Yang said the arbitration is a major political
obstacle to the improvement of relations between China and the Philippines,
calling on the new Philippine government to bear in mind the common interests
of the two countries and the broader picture of bilateral ties and properly handle
relevant issues.
The South China Sea issue is not an issue between China and Asean, said Yang,
adding that China will maintain communication and consultation with those
Asean member states who are directly concerned to address the specific disputes
in a proper way.
DU30 names FVR to start China-RP talks
Duterte announced late Thursday he would send a former president, Fidel
Ramos, to China to start talks on the ruling of The Hague-based Permanent
Court of Arbitration.
Solictor-General Calida stressed Friday there would be no concessions to China.
“We value the award given by the (tribunal), and the Philippines will not concede
any of the awards given to us,” Calida said, using the legal term for the ruling.
But the Solicitor General clarified that for alternative means, the country “will
also pursue diplomatic means to convince” China that we have to coexist
peacefully, this was said despite China’s statements.
In a press conference, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang again lashed
out at the PCA’s jurisdiction and legality as an international court to hear this
case, reiterating “China will never accept the absurd argument that the illegal
conclusion of an unlawful arbitration court is legally binding,” pointing out that
Philippines’ territorial sovereignty-related claims fall outside the jurisdiction of
UNCLoS.”
The Philippine counsel to the arbitration case, Lawrence Martin, firmly stands on
the position that the award is clear and binding, “China has to accept that any
talks have to use the award as foundation or basis.”
No legal basis-PCA
The tribunal found there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to
resources in areas falling within its nine-dash line, which is based on a vague
map that emerged in the 1940s.
The nine-dash line overlaps with waters also claimed by the Philippines, Brunei,
Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam.
The tribunal also ruled Beijing had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights to
exploit resources in waters up to 340 kilometers beyond its coast, called its
exclusive economic zone.
 China had built artificial islands atop seven reefs in the area, inflicting severe
environmental damage, the tribunal said.
“We will use diplomacy. I believe this is the most peaceful way of settling this,”
Calida said, adding Duterte had set no timeframe for achieving results.
“We will be patient of course and hopefully China will show the same grace that
we have shown,” Calida added.
Duterte, who took office on June 30, has said he wants better relations with
China and to attract Chinese investment for major infrastructure projects.
Ramos, who served as president from 1992 to 1998, is also known to favor close
ties with China. However he has yet to accept the mission.
Sino-Philippine relations plummeted over the maritime row under Duterte’s
predecessor Benigno Aquino, whose government filed the arbitration case in
2013.
Senior Supreme Court associate justice Antonio Carpio warned Friday it would be
illegal for Manila to jointly develop with China or any other country the resources
in the areas adjudicated as part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
Carpio, a member of the Philippine team that brought the suit against China, told
a public forum the Philippine constitution reserved the “use and enjoyment” of
the resources in this vast maritime zone exclusively to Filipinos.
But he said Manila may engage foreign entities as contractors to extract or
develop these resources.
In response, Calida said: “Certainly we will not do something illegal or
unconstitutional.”
 Joyce Ann Rocamora and AFP

PCA ruling no impact on sea rights — Li

 Written by Ted Tuvera

 Sunday, 17 July 2016 00:00

The award issued by the United Nation’s (UN)-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA) in The Hague that invalidated the nine-dash line claim will have no impact
whatsoever on China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the
South China Sea, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said.
Speaking in an informal meeting during the 11th Asian-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit
in Ulan Bator, Li said the South China Sea issue should not be subject to multilateral
discussions from the very beginning, and is not included in the Ulan Bator summit’s
agenda.
“But since certain countries commented on the issue, it is thus necessary for China to
come out to clarify its stance and spell out the truth,” he said.
Li said China never participated in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines,
adding that his country neither accepts nor acknowledges the so-called arbitration
award.
“By doing so, we are both exercising our rights in accordance with international law,
and safeguarding the dignity of international law,” he said.
“Under no circumstance will the arbitration award exert any impact on China’s territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea,” Li added.
The Chinese premier said China adheres to settlement of the South China Sea disputes
via dialog and consultation with countries directly involved on the basis of respect for
historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to safeguard peace and
stability in the South China Sea.
The hard-line position of China over the PCA ruling proves that the country’s conflict
with China will not be resolved even after a year, political analyst and expert on
Beijing’s affairs Chito Sta. Romana said.
Sta. Romana said in media forum in Quezon City China has a historical reputation of
dealing with countries it is having disputes with for a long period of time, even decades
perhaps.
He cited Beijing’s previous dealings with the then Soviet Union (Russia) that took two
decades and even with Vietnam that lasted for three decades.
“This is because the Chinese government wants to take advantage of the situation for
its benefit. China has this long-term perspective while we here in the Philippines, are
more inclined to go for immediate results such as our right to fish in the areas that are
being disputed,” he explained.
It is also apparent that the Philippine government cannot assert or capitalize on the PCA
ruling that has theoretically denied all of China’s historical or maritime claims in the
South China Sea, since Beijing has repeatedly stated that it is not respecting the said
decision.
“It is quite fair to say that the Philippines cannot go and meet China on the terms of the
PCA ruling since China refuses to respect it. What is needed here is a mutual agreement
to avoid harsh or unnecessary confrontations,” Sta. Romana said.
“Based on President Duterte’s tactics, Beijing trusts him. We cannot say ‘its ours and
ours alone’. We really have to work on this together economically speaking,” he added.
Malacañang, days after the Hague released its 501-page decision, refused to issue a
statement officially and designated Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay to be the
country’s sole spokesman on the case.
Based on statements made by Duterte and some of his Cabinet members, however, his
administration appears inclined to engage Beijing officials bilaterally.
Stress on ‘soft-landing’
Duterte, in his first ever official cabinet meeting, instructed Yasay and the rest of his
Cabinet to issue only “soft-landing” statements to prevent further inflaming China.
Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella said in spite of the award, the government is still
studying the decision on what should be the next steps to be taken regarding the
matter.
“We are not keeping our cards close to our chest. We are really thinking through the
right response but the initial statement should be issued sometime after Secretary
Yasay comes back from Mongolia,” Abella said on Friday.
Yasay represented the country in the ongoing Asia-Europe Summit (ASEM) in Mongolia.
After the Arbitral Court handed down its decision, fishermen have tried to fish in the
disputed areas.
“We are still saying that the fishermen are not prevented. However, they are cautioned
to proceed with care,” Abella said.
Former Sen. Francisco ‘Kit’ Tatad, for his part, said the PCA ruling is “all paper”.
“It cannot enforce anything. China did not participate in the case. So, what victory are
we talking about here in the first place?” Tatad, who was also in the said weekly media
forum, said.
“The arbiter only clarified matters but it cannot dictate or impose anything. That’s why
it is inevitable for the Philippines and China to talk. After all, the enforcement of such a
ruling depends on the fruit of our negotiations,” he added.
Tatad even refuses to see the PCA as a “moral victory,” saying that the said ruling only
boosted the Philippines’ “ego in a wrong way”.
“Its like putting Manny Pacquiao in a boxing ring without an opponent. If you allow him
to shadowbox and eventually declare him a world champion, is that a victory? No. Not
even morally,” he said.
Tung: Awards rejection valid
Tung Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive of Hong Kong after its turnover to China and
now Vice Chairman of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said there is
ample evidence for China to reject the PCA award.
Delivering a keynote speech at the Public International Law Colloquium on Maritime
Disputes Settlement in Hong Kong, Tung said China has indeed adhered to international
legal norms in the South China Sea dispute.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLoS) has provided its
signatories with an option to make an exception in cases concerning maritime boundary
delimitation, with more than 30 countries have taken the option including UN Security
Council permanent members Britain, France and Russia, Tung said.
On this basis, Tung said, China ratified the Convention in 1996, when it made a
declaration reaffirming its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands, including
those in the South China Sea.
In 2006, China made another declaration, under Article 298 of the Convention, that any
maritime boundary delimitation issues are excluded from the jurisdiction of any dispute
resolution mechanism under the Convention.
Another reason for China declined to attend the arbitration proceedings is that, in 2002,
a Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was agreed, promoting
bilateral negotiation among the disputing nations over sovereignty issues, and calling
for the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea for all nations of the world in
accordance to UNCLoS.
“To have attended the arbitration proceedings at the Hague would undermine a process
that has long been in place to resolve the dispute in a bilateral and peaceful manner,”
Tung said.
Furthermore, UNCLoS rules clearly provide that, until the bilateral discussions have
been exhausted, a country should not approach the Permanent Court of Arbitration to
adjudicate border disputes, Tung added.
Tung also talked about the historical evidence to support China’s sovereignty over the
South China Sea, saying the Chinese discovered Nansha Islands with the earliest
archaeological evidence of their use dating back hundreds and sometimes thousands of
years.
In more recent history towards the end of the World War II, there emerges ample,
clear and convincing evidence that China has sovereignty over the Nansha Islands.
This evidence has been recognized by the international community, including the United
States. These can be found in very important international treaties and declarations
including the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration, he said.
“Whilst a strategic intend is to pursue peace above all, China will firmly and steadfastly
pursue the protection of her territorial integrity,” Tung said, emphasizing peace is
precious and stands above all and China would like to resolve territorial disputes
peacefully.
Tung also criticized the U.S. for frequently carrying out military exercises in the South
China Sea, sometimes in conjunction with the military of another claimant to the
disputed region, which helps to consolidate suspicions of many Chinese people that the
U.S. pivot to Asia is to contain China.

Historical evidence to support RP claim over South China Sea — Sulu

sultanate

 Written by Mario J. Mallari

 Monday, 18 July 2016 00:00

Aside from the favorable ruling of the United Nations arbitral tribunal on the Philippines
claims over the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea), the country can also invoke
historical rights over the disputed area with the recognition by China’s Ming Dynasty of
the Sulu sultanate long before Beijing “invented” the nine-dash line.
Abraham Idjirani, secretary general of the Sultanate of Sulu, yesterday said the
Philippine government can cite the 1405 treaty signed by China and Sulu sultanate
wherein the Ming Dynasty recognized Sulu. This as China continued to ignore the UN
ruling junking its historical and nine-dash line claims over the South China Sea,
including the entire Kalayaan Islands Group (KIGs) or the Spratlys in the West
Philippine Sea.
“The government can also invoke historical rights of the Sultanate of Sulu,” Idjirani told
The Tribune.
“When the Ming Dynasty of China recognized Sulu as the Eastern Kingdom of Sulu,
China signed the 1405 Treaty in the Status of An Independent Tributary States whereby
China recognized the now disputed area as part of the Sultanate of Sulu which was
then called Chuluan or Managkayan (Clamp) Island,” he added.
With the recognition of the sultanate by the Ming Dynasty, Idjirani said China’s nine-
dash line and historical claims are invalid.
“The 1405 Treaty between China and the Eastern Kingdom of Sulu (now the Sultanate
of Sulu) that emphasized ‘non interference of each other internal affairs’ will defy
China’s claim of nine-dash line which it called its historical basis,” said Idjirani.
Despite international pressure after the UN arbitral tribunal handed its decision rejecting
China’s nine-dash line claims, Beijing is standing firm on its position of not recognizing
the international court’s ruling over the South China Sea
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said China never participated in the arbitration unilaterally
initiated by the Philippines, adding his country neither accepts nor acknowledges the
so-called arbitration award.
“By doing so, we are both exercising our rights in accordance with international law,
and safeguarding the dignity of international law,” he said.
“Under no circumstance will the arbitration award exert any impact on China’s territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea,” Li added.
The Chinese premier said Beijing adheres to settlement of the South China Sea disputes
through dialogue and consultation with countries directly involved on the basis of
respect for historical facts and in accordance with international law, so as to safeguard
peace and stability in the South China Sea.
The Duterte administration has stated that it is open for bilateral talks with China to
peacefully settle the dispute over the KIGs.
The UN arbitral tribunal last Tuesday junked China’s nine dash line claims in the South
China Sea and awarded to the Philippines the exclusive economic zone over the KIGs
where China has conducted massive reclamation development activities in recent years.
The court also declared Scarborough Shoal or Panatag Shoal as a free zone for all
fishermen but Chinese vessels continued to drive away Filipino fishermen from
Zambales.
Itu Aba: PH biggest worry is biggest win

Philippine Daily Inquirer By: Tarra Quismundo 12:42 AM July 18th, 2016

THE ROCK of contention was the Philippine legal team’s “biggest worry.”

But in the end, the status of Itu Aba, the largest feature in the disputed Spratly Islands
in the South China Sea, turned out to be one of the Philippines’ most significant scores
in its challenge to China’s claim to almost all of the South China Sea in the Permanent
Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

For two solicitors general who led the team in the Philippines’ biggest international legal
battle, the classification of Itu Aba as a rock, not an island, has been the greatest relief.

The UN-backed tribunal’s decision meant that the feature, long under the control of
Taiwan, which calls it Taiping Island, does not entitle any claimant to a 370-kilometer
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), precluding any overlap with the Philippines’ nearest
coast in Palawan.

It is among the highlights of the unanimous ruling handed down by the tribunal on
Tuesday, invalidating China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea, nearly a full
grant of the Philippines’ position on maritime entitlements in the heavily contested
waters.

“Now I can tell you. At 5 p.m. on Tuesday, my worry was Itu Aba. Because we really
didn’t know how the tribunal was going to rule,” said former Solicitor General Florin
Hilbay, who argued the Philippines’ case before the tribunal.

“When the ruling was released, that was Ben’s (Supreme Court Associate Justice
Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa) first question: “What’s the ruling on Itu Aba?”

‘Biggest worry’

“It was the biggest worry,” said Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, also
a former solicitor general.

Jardeleza was the government’s chief trial lawyer when it decided to initiate arbitration
proceedings against China in January 2013.

Hilbay, who joined the Office of the Solicitor General in the same month but largely to
handle the country’s defense for the reproductive health law, took on the role when
Jardeleza was appointed to the Supreme Court in August 2014.

Had the tribunal ruled otherwise, Jardeleza said, it would have spelled further danger of
encroachment by other claimants into Philippine waters.
Had the tribunal ruled that Itu Aba was an island, its EEZ “would reach the coast of
Palawan and Reed Bank (Recto Bank),” a feature within the Philippines’ EEZ where the
country had been exploring for oil and gas.

Whether Itu Aba should be included in the case was the subject of debate within the
legal team and among outsiders who strongly supported the Philippine claim—a matter
that Jardeleza and Hilbay disclosed only after the case had been decided.

Differences in legal strategy at the time had even drawn for Jardeleza allegations of
betrayal, particularly from Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, a staunch supporter of the
Philippine case.

Risky for PH

“In the beginning, nobody said, ‘Include Itu Aba.’ Nobody. Not (Paul) Reichler (the
Philippines’ lead lawyer), not the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Nobody,”
Jardeleza told the Inquirer in an interview on Thursday.

“Nobody wanted to mention Itu Aba because the risk was, if the tribunal ruled that it
was an island, there would be an overlap of the EEZs,” he said.

The feature was not in the original complaint against China that the Philippines brought
in January 2013.

In the following months, Jardeleza’s said scholars started taunting the Philippines in
news reports for missing the largest feature in the Spratlys in its case.

Jardeleza said members of the legal team were one in saying the Philippines should not
amend the complaint to include Itu Aba, as that “would be admitting that you forgot
about it.”

“The political reason is, if you were the one to include it and you lose politically, the
next stage is that an aircraft carrier of China will park in Palawan and they can say,
‘Well, we have overlapping EEZs so we can go up to here.’ And that’s because of us,”
Jardeleza said.

Written into ‘memorial’

Still, Reichler, of the international firm Foley Hoag who was commissioned for the case
because of his experience in international arbitration, wrote 17 paragraphs about Itu
Aba in the Philippines’ “memorial” in the case.

The memorial—a “long explanation of the complaint,” according to Hilbay—was in the

works at the time.
Then President Benigno Aquino III eventually decided to include Itu Aba in the
memorial, which was filed in March 2014, through mere mention, which made it “an
incidental issue that might be relevant for deciding the major issues,” Hilbay said.

Later, it was the tribunal itself that asked the Philippines to submit further pleadings
tackling Itu Aba—the strategy that Hilbay and Jardeleza said they had been eyeing all
along.

“[The tribunal] knew Itu Aba was going to be crucial because it’s the largest feature.
The tribunal itself was the one who compelled us to discuss Itu Aba, so it’s they
signaling to us that we could not decide a lot of the issues you raised without looking at
Itu Aba. But it’s the tribunal, not the [Philippines, that raised it as a feature whose
status must be clarified],” Hilbay said.

It’s a rock

In the end, the Philippines won by asserting its position that Itu Aba was a rock, not an
island. Taiwan, which occupies Itu Aba and has built an airport on it, rejected the
ruling.

Apart from Itu Aba, Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal, Burgos (Gaven) Reef North, Chigua
(McKennan) Reef, Mabini (Johnson South) Reef, Calderon (Cuarteron) Reef, and
Kagitingan (Fiery Cross) Reef were also classified as rocks.

Zamora (Subi) Reef, Hughes Reef (no Philippine name), Panganiban (Mischief) Reef,
Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal, and Gaven (Gavin) South Reef were classified as low-
tide elevations that do not generate any maritime entitlement.

Recto (Reed) Bank was classified as a “completely submerged” feature within the
Philippines’ EEZ.

Knock on Jardeleza

The inclusion of Itu Aba in the memorial was raised against Jardeleza when he was
being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court.

Jardeleza was accused of betraying national interest when he pressed for the deletion
of the Itu Aba information from the memorial.

Carpio raised the matter as a question on his integrity before the Judicial and Bar
Council, the body that short-lists and endorses nominees for justices to Malacañang.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno joined Carpio in opposing Jardeleza’s nomination.
“I kept quiet, even if I was being called a traitor. I did not respond. Why? Because if I
had confirmed that we were fighting about Itu Aba, what do you think the Chinese
intelligence would have done? It would have meant you were confirming that we were
scared. So I kept my peace,” Jardeleza said, dealing with the controversy for the first
time.

Hilbay described the disagreement between Carpio and Jardeleza as “a debate over
strategy.”

“It was tactical,” he said.

Jardeleza said the hurtful allegations caused him sleepless nights but he held on to the
discipline of keeping mum.

“My only complain is, just because we disagree, I’m seen as less loyal to my country …
especially if you (Carpio) have nothing to do with this case,” he said.

“Do not say the other guy is less patriotic than you are. We are all patriots,” he said.
“[It] really hurts to be called a traitor by somebody who has nothing to do with the
case.”

Jardeleza said he and Carpio maintained “civil” professional relations on the Supreme
Court.

China, Russia to hold joint exercises in South China Sea

 Written by AFP and Tribune Wires

 Friday, 29 July 2016 00:00

BEIJING – China and Russia will hold joint naval exercises in the South China Sea in
September, Beijing’s defense ministry yesterday said, after an international tribunal
invalidated the Asian giant’s extensive claims in the area.
The drills will be carried out in the “relevant sea and air of the South China Sea,”
defense ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters at a monthly briefing.
With international diplomatic tensions mounting and Washington regularly sending
warships into the strategically vital area to assert the right to freedom of navigation,
the move could see vessels from several of the world’s most powerful militaries in
the same region at the same time.
The drills aimed to “consolidate and develop” China and Russia’s comprehensive
strategic partnership, and “enhance the capabilities of the two navies to jointly deal
with maritime security threats” Yang said.
The announcement comes after a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in
The Hague ruled that there was “no legal basis” to Beijing’s claims in the South China
Sea, embodied in a “nine-dash line” dating from Chinese maps of the 1940s and
extending almost to the coasts of other countries, which have competing claims.
China has built a series of artificial islands on rocks and reefs in the area hosting
facilities capable of supporting military operations, widely seen as an attempt to
bolster its control of the waters.
The tribunal ruling — in a case brought by the Philippines — infuriated Beijing, which
rejected it as “waste paper” and reiterated its right to declare an air defense
identification zone controlling flights over the area.
China and Russia have close military and diplomatic ties, often in opposition to the
West, particularly the United States, and their leaders Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin
enjoy a tight relationship.
The two sides hold joint drills regularly “on land and sea,” Yang said, which
“contribute to peace and stability.”
September’s exercise was “routine” and “does not target any third party,” he added.
Last August, the two powers — who were allies then rivals during the Soviet era —
carried out military exercises in the waters and airspace of the Peter the Great Gulf,
south of the Russian Pacific city of Vladivostok, involving 22 vessels, up to 20 aircraft
and more than 500 marines.
In May last year, they conducted their first joint naval exercises in European waters
in the Black Sea and Mediterranean, China’s farthest-ever drills from its home
waters.
Xi and Putin meet frequently and their countries, both permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, often take similar stances there on divisive issues
such as the conflict in Syria.

Sensitive factors
In response to Beijing’s increased activity in the South China Sea, the US began a
series of “freedom of navigation” operations in the area, sailing naval vessels within
12 nautical miles — the normal territorial limit around natural land — of reefs in the
region.
The missions were widely seen as an attempt to push back against China’s increasing
assertiveness, although the Pentagon said they were also a warning to Vietnam,
Taiwan and the Philippines.
On Monday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice told Chinese officials in Beijing
that the US intended to continue its patrols in the region, while the vice chairman of
China’s Central Military Commission, Fan Changlong, warned that ties between the
two powers could easily fray.
“We should be honest with ourselves that deep down in this relationship we’re still
faced with obstacles and challenges,” Fan said, adding that military ties had been
“impacted by some complicated and some sensitive factors.”
Rice noted that “risks of unintended consequences” of the two countries’ forces
operating in ever-closer proximity had been reduced thanks to better
communication and other confidence-building measures.

Asean heads toward disintegration

 Written by Tribune Editorial

 Thursday, 28 July 2016 00:00

 T he Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is headed toward

irrelevance as a result of the tug-of-war between the United States and China
over the South China Sea conflict.
The Asean members the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have been
polarized between the two powers.
The regional grouping which officially became an economic bloc last
December now can’t even come up with a joint communiqué for several
assemblies since 2012 due to the contentious sea conflict issue.
Questions are now being raised by Asean members on the bloc’s viability if it
can’t even come up with a common stand on issues facing the region.
The Asean is considered largely as a discussion group with little achievement
even with integration as its members gravitate toward the superpowers instead
of standing up as a group.
The absence of a common position in the past few meetings of the Asean was
mainly due to the inability to generate consensus on whether or not to refer to
China and the South China Sea dispute.
Since Asean operates on the basis of consensus, which is a slow non-
contentious process, a disagreement from one member is enough to defeat the
crafting of a common position.
In the recent Asean foreign ministers’ meeting in Laos, the Philippines and
Vietnam wanted to include China and South China Sea in the group’s
 communiqué but Cambodia, a staunch Chinese ally, insisted that no reference
be made of these two words in the common statement. The result was expected
in that Asean failed to present a common position to negotiate with China and
exposed its disunity and lack of coordination.
The absence of a common statement also implies that the grouping no longer
has a common agenda and a united voice, making useless the members
supposed integration.
The sea dispute was the first issue to fracture the group as in the past even
though member-states have differed on issues such as human rights, a
compromise is always reached.
The United States is a key sources of Asean division. The Laos meeting took
place following the July 12 ruling of the UN-backed Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, which voided China’s maritime claims in the
South China Sea.
The United States is prodding both the Philippines and Vietnam, which it
considers as allies, for a final communiqué to include a reference to the court
decision and the need to respect international law.
The US is doing this, however, in disregard of the fact that it has not even
ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which was the basis of the
PCA ruling.
The US also instigated the Philippines to file the arbitration case in The Hague.
China refused to take part in the proceedings, insisting that the court had no
jurisdiction, and emphatically declared that it will not recognize the ruling.
Acting in support of China, Cambodia has blocked any mention of the PCA
ruling in an Asean communiqué and declared its preference for territorial
disputes to be settled through a bilateral basis — the stance taken by Beijing.
Before the PCA decision was handed down, the US Navy carried out three
“freedom of navigation” operations, sending destroyers within the 12-nautical-
mile territorial limit surrounding Chinese-administered islets.
The US military build-up in the South China Sea and the strengthening of
military ties with surrounding countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam,
were seen as part of a broader “pivot to Asia” to diplomatically isolate China,
encircle it militarily and prepare for war.
Amid the posturing of the two superpowers, the Asean should find its own
footing to stand up against the influences of China and US, and instead promote
its own interest as a united bloc.

China’s SC clarifies maritime jurisdiction

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Wednesday, 03 August 2016 00:00
 BEIJING—The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) on Tuesday issued a regulation
on judicial interpretation to clarify China’s jurisdiction over its territorial seas.
The explanation provides a clear legal basis for China to protect the maritime
order, marine safety and interests, and to exercise integrated management over
the country’s jurisdictional seas, said an SPC statement.
The regulation, which takes effect Tuesday, states that Chinese citizens or
foreigners will be pursued for criminal liability if they engage in illegal hunting
or fishing, or killing endangered wildlife in China’s jurisdictional seas.
An unnamed SPC official said maritime courts across China have handled
many maritime cases in recent years. “People’s courts’ jurisdiction over the
Diaoyu, Huangyan and Xisha Islands and its adjacent sea areas has never
stopped,” the official said.
“Judicial power is an important component of national sovereignty,” said the
official, adding, “People’s courts will actively exercise jurisdiction over
China’s territorial waters, support administrative departments to legally
perform maritime management duties, equally protect the legal rights of
Chinese and foreign parties involved and safeguard Chinese territorial
sovereignty and maritime interests.”
The judicial explanation, based on Chinese law, the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea and judicial practices, further clarifies China’s maritime jurisdiction,
the statement said.
According to the regulation, jurisdictional seas not only include inland waters
and territorial seas, but also cover regions including contiguous zones,
exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.
The regulation also addresses Chinese citizens or organizations engaged in
fishing in fishing zones or the open sea under co-management between China
and other countries, according to signed agreements.
The interpretation specifies the standard of conviction and punishment for
illegal marine fishing: Those who illegally enter Chinese territorial waters and
refuse to leave after being driven away, or who re-enter after being driven away
or being fined in the past year, will be considered to have committed “serious”
criminal acts and will be fined and sentenced to less than a year of
imprisonment, detention or surveillance.
This penalty also applies to those who illegally enter China’s territorial seas to
fish but do not engage in “illegal fishing” under the law, it said.
“The explanation offers legal guarantees for marine fishing law enforcement,”
defining punishments for fishing without a license in order to encourage legal
fishing, said the statement, adding that it also promotes judicial assistance and
international cooperation on marine affairs.
In recent years, illegal hunting, fishing and killing of endangered wildlife in
China’s jurisdictional seas has happened frequently, and foreign ships and
foreigners have entered China’s exclusive economic zones to conduct criminal
activities, said the SPC official.
The official said applying the Criminal Law to crack down on crimes in
China’s jurisdictional seas is conducive to safeguarding territorial sovereignty
and maritime integrity.
DoF counters China’s SC ruling
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has countered the Supreme People’s
Court (SPC) of China’s regulation yesterday, that warned foreign fishermen
with criminal liability if they engage in “illegal hunting or fishing” in China’s
jurisdictional seas.
In an effort to undermine the validity of ruling handed down by the Permanent
Court of Arbitration which struck Beijing’s claim on 90 percent of South China
Sea, the SPC issued this regulation to clarify its power over their territorial sea.
Although the regulation did not mention the contested South China Sea, it
made clear that it is based on Chinese law, the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea and judicial practices, a clear descent to the July 12, award.
For the past years, Filipino fishermen have been barred and chased away by
Chinese coast guards from fishing in the resource-rich Scarborough Shoal, or
Bajo de Masinloc, which has been a traditional fishing ground to both Filipinos
and Chinese nationals.
The contested area, just 124 nautical miles away from Zambales, has been
guarded by China since.
DFA Assistant Secretary Charles Jose took the stand that this regulation is
beyond international law as “the tribunal made it clear in its ruling that Bajo de
Masinloc is a common fishing ground.”
He added that “it is important that our fishermen are able to return to Bajo de
Masincloc because it is about their livelihood.”
With this, he assured that in future direct talks with China, “this is definitely a
priority issue” that they will have to resolve.
Future bilateral talks
In an earlier interview, Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr. already
affirmed that Philippines will soon push through bilateral negotiations with
China to settle this matter in the West Philippine Sea.
“We are still being harassed by China. So what we are doing is to try to work
out with China at this point,” he said in a radio interview.
Japan warns China
over territorial aggression
Meanwhile, Beijing risks triggering unintended conflict with Asian rivals
through its aggressive stance in maritime disputes, Japan warned Tuesday in an
annual security assessment.
China’s sweeping claims over the strategic South China Sea, where it has built
 a series of artificial islands capable of supporting military operations despite
overlapping claims from other nations, have stoked international alarm.
The region’s superpower “continues to act in an assertive manner” and its
actions “include dangerous acts that could cause unintended consequences,”
Tokyo said in a defense white paper.
Beijing is under pressure to respect a UN-backed tribunal’s finding last month
that there is no legal basis for its ambitions over the resource-rich South China
Sea where the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and others also lay claims.
The white paper said China was “poised to fulfill its unilateral demands without
compromise” including efforts “to turn these coercive changes to the status quo
into a fait accompli”.
And it again called on Beijing to abide by the ruling of the tribunal, which
China has denounced as a fraud.
Japan also expressed concern over increased activity in the East China Sea,
where the two countries have competing claims over a group of small
uninhabited islets called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.
“Recently, China has been intensifying activities near the Senkaku Islands,
such as its military aircraft flying southward closer to the islands,” it said.
In the year to March 2016, Japan’s air force scrambled jets 571 times against
Chinese planes flying near Japanese air space, an increase of 107 from the
previous year, it added.
In June Japan accused China of sending a spy ship into its territorial waters as
Tokyo conducted a joint exercise with the United States and India.
And last month the two countries were at loggerheads over accusations
Japanese warplanes locked their fire control radar onto Chinese aircraft.
Beijing sparked alarm after it unilaterally established an air defence
identification zone in the East China Sea in 2013, demanding all aircraft submit
flight plans when traversing the zone which covers islands disputed with Tokyo
and also claimed by Taipei.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in February that China’s military
presence in the South China Sea was increasing the risk of “miscalculation or
conflict” between regional countries.
A US warship in May sailed close to a disputed reef Beijing has built up into an
artificial island, prompting China to express “dissatisfaction and opposition”.
Japan’s white paper also highlighted concerns over North Korea’s nuclear
program, saying it was possible it has “achieved the miniaturization of nuclear
weapons and has developed nuclear warheads”.
 Xinhua, AFP and Joyce Rocamora
China can’t touch Filipino fishermen – int’l law expert

 Written by Tribune Wires

 Saturday, 06 August 2016 00:00
 font size
 Print
 1 comment

By Joyce Ann L. Rocamora

Another tribunal suit might just be the right solution to counter Supreme Court (SC)
of China’s regulation that seeks to pursue foreign fishermen criminal liabilities should
it be enforced in the contested region, said a leading expert on maritime law.
Earlier this week, China’s SC released that “those who illegally enter Chinese
territorial waters and refuse to leave after being driven away, or who re-enter after
being driven away” will be considered committing criminal acts.
The latest release which seeks to clarify their territorial waters was conspicuously set
a few days after a ruling handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration hit their
claim on 90 percent of South China Sea.
The court’s regulation did not mention the disputed South China Sea but it includes
contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves with which their
obvious claims are practically constituted.
According to Director of Institute of Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea Jay
Batongbacal, if in the scenario where our fishermen are detained for fishing in another
disputed water they can easily “be subject for prompt release procedures under the
United Convention of the Law of the Sea.”
Since holding them in custody is contrary to international law, “the Philippines will be
able to file a suit with the international tribunal court on the law of the sea in
Hamburg to seek for an order to court China to promptly release the fishermen and the
fishing vessels.”
The Scarborough Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc located 124 nautical miles away from
Zambales has been a traditional fishing ground to both Filipinos and Chinese.
“Detaining our fishermen operating within our exclusive economic zone even though
the particular fishing ground may have been determined to be a shared fishing
ground” is definitely contrary to these rules,” he stressed.
In this flight, continued observance of restraint and patience is advised by the
Department of Foreign Affairs.
Addition on the right to fish in a shared area at South China Sea, Batongbacal and
DFA spokesman Charles Jose confirmed that the privilege of construction and
enhancement of our facilities in the region are also allowed as per our exclusive
economic zones are concerned.
Batongbacal explained that the repair and maintenance of facilities already built in our
claims is not prohibited under international law.
“What was deemed illegal or contrary was the excessive action of China in making
these gigantic artificial islands,” a mere repair of facility does not cross the line.
Although allowed, he said that we need to think it over first, given the tensions and
given that we have not yet started the initial efforts of talking with China, “maybe it’s
not a good time, but definitely we have to consider it for the future.”