Just look at the Distance, Scarborough is nearer than the

Philippines than China. China’s Nine Dash Line was never

acknowledging by the World, they only recognize it by
themselves. Scarborough Shoal is within the 200nm Exclusive
Economic Zone of the Philippines. The UN Tribunal declared it as
Traditional Fishing Ground but the control over it will be under
the Philippines, if China just get out of the Philippine EEZ.
He said he had an agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping to “The exclusive economic zone of the Philippines gives rights of
allow China to fish in the Philippine EEZ after Beijing granted Filipino the Philippines to have exclusive sovereignty over it. Since it is
fishermen access to Scarborough Shoal. exclusive, you cannot allow other countries to fish in these areas
which are covered by this economic zone without the consent of
Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/177040/duterte-china- the people,”
can-fish-in-philippines-eez#ixzz5tEVgO2cv
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
As a matter of fact sa law, that is what’s called compelling anybody — He explained it would be up to the Bureau of Fisheries and
is a crime. Aquatic Resources (BFAR) to decide whether or not there is
excess in the “allowable fishing.”
Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/177040/duterte-china- Locsin added that the verbal agreement with China cannot be
can-fish-in-philippines-eez#ixzz5tEVxDxL7 enforced, “because it’s verbal” and a document is needed to
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook prove the deal.

Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/177384/locsin-says-

The President said it would result in war if he would ban China from
fishing in the West Philippine Sea.
Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/177040/duterte-china-
can-fish-in-philippines-eez#ixzz5tEW6zOsy
philippines-not-allowing-china-to-fish-in-eez#ixzz5tEXStUdE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on
Facebook
he Philippines' arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well
as to exploit other resources, in the West Philippine Sea.
(READ: PH vs China at The Hague: '80% of fish' at stake)
This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans,
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has the exclusive right to fish

within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical
miles from the coastal state's baselines or edges.

1. China's 'historical rights'

ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it

refers to as 'historic rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil
beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."

EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it

for centuries. This is why it claims "historical rights" over the
disputed sea.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme

Court, however, says that "even if true," these historical rights
have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS. Carpio explains
that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states."
This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ.
(READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China)

2. China's 9-dash line

ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis

whatsoever under international law insofar as it purports to
define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"

EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim

virtually the entire South China Sea. China says this is based on its
"historical rights."

The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless

under UNCLOS. This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-dash
line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy)

3. Rocks vs islands

ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied

upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the
South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are
'rocks' within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are
low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged.
As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond
12NM (nautical miles), and some generate no entitlements at all.
China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully
change the original nature and character of these features."

EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a

200-nautical-mile EEZ. Rocks cannot.

China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands.

One of these is Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky
sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.

China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could

overlap with the EEZ of the Philippines. The problem for the
Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not accept"
arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS
allows this exception.
This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no
right to hear the Philippine case – because it supposedly involves
overlapping EEZs.

"The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils

down to whether there are overlapping EEZs between the
Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea," Senior
Associate Justice Carpio says.

Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps

with the Philippines' EEZ in the Scarborough area." Carpio also
believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu Aba," the largest
island in the Spratlys, an EEZ. (READ:Why China calls it Huangyan
Island)

The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot

"lawfully change" rocks into islands.

4. Breach of the law of the sea

ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by

interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign rights
and jurisdiction."

EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West

Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos the
exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in the disputed
waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast guard's
hostility)

5. Damage to environment
 ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine
environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of coral
reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the
Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing
practices, and by its harvesting of endangered species."

EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West

Philippine Sea. The Philippines says China's reclamation
activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7 times
the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29
million) in lost economic benefits. At the same time, China is
accused of poaching. (READ: PH: China 'irreversibly damaged'
environment)

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in

arbitration proceedings. It has instead published a position
paper debunking the Philippines' claims.

In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to
provide a long-term solution to the sea dispute. (READ: FULL
TEXT: The Philippines' opening salvo at The Hague)

Chinese can fish in Philippine EEZ after President Rodrigo Duterte

said Manila and Beijing are friends.
Philippines recognized the benefits to the country of China's rise.
"We have been a beneficiary of a part of what they have committed
to us. But I think our people should look at the measure of these
benefits vis-a-vis the value of our natural resources and how it will
benefit not only ourselves but our future generations,
UNCLOS 'a big compromise'

He pointed out that before UNCLOS was concluded in 1982, coastal

states claimed varying portions of the sea. Some claimed up to 500
nautical miles from the baselines, some 600, some 200.

UNCLOS provided a "big compromise," Carpio said: Each coastal state

will have an EEZ of 200 nautical miles from the baselines, "but you
have to waive all other historical claims to all other waters."

China has cited its historical rights to uphold its 9-dash line – which
Carpio earlier said is based "on historical lies."

"China signed and ratified UNCLOS.

Ms Conchita Morales, a former anti-graft court chief, accused Mr

Duterte of being "more concerned with the economic benefits that
he expects to drag by being friendly and being soft on China".

Mr Duterte has upended the Philippines' foreign policy since taking

office in 2016, pivoting towards China as he courted investments for
his infrastructure programme and political backing from Beijing.

"Maintaining peace and accord among all nations, as well as avoiding

knee-jerk and reckless undertakings in disputed areas, are only two
of the many carefully studied moves of the President, in obedience to
the said constitutional command,"

Provided below is a quick overview of the relationship between the

Philippines and China (these latest available figures are up to date as
of 2015).

ECONOMY AND TRADE

 US$ 1.272 billion in development assistance to the Philippines

from China from 2002 until 2013 (not including the results of
the recent visit to Beijing – as referred to below).
 US$ 17.646 billion worth of bilateral trade between China and
the Philippines in 2015.
 US$ 6.175 billion worth of Philippine. exports to China in
2015.
 US$ 11.471 billion in Philippine imports from China in 2015.
 US$ 1.455 billion in Chinese investments in the Philippines in
2015.

TOURISM
 An estimated 680,000 Chinese visitors to the Philippines in
2016.
 An estimated 1.2 million Filipino visitors to China in 2016.

 Tourism from China to Philippines will increase and is a good

 source of revenue for the Philippines. The figures for 2017 are
expected to increase rapidly, and the casino industry is
expected to be one of the major beneficiaries.

BILATERAL AGREEMENTS – Philippines and China

 1978 Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreement

 1979 Cultural Cooperation Agreement, Civil Aviation and
Transportation Agreement
 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Sports
Cooperation
 2001 Cooperation in Information Industry
 2001 Cooperation in the Crackdown on Transnational Crimes
 2001 Treaty on Extradition
 2001 Pact on Cooperation Against Illicit Traffic and Abuse of
Narcotic Drugs
 2002 MOU on Tourism Cooperation
 2005 MOU on Maritime Cooperation
 2005 Pact on Cooperation in Youth Affairs
 2007 MOU on Cooperation in Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Cooperation, Education Cooperation
  2007 Pact on Protection of Cultural Heritage
 2008 Pact on Sanitary Cooperation

Philippine-China Trade Figures including comparisons with Japan

and USA

The Philippines posted a US$ 2.31 billion trade deficit in January

2017, compared to a US$ 2.64 billion gap a year earlier, as exports
rose more than imports. In December 2016, the Philippines total
trade deficit was US$ 2.16 billion.

Year-on-year sales increased by 22.5% to US$ 5.13 billion in January

2017, following an upward revised 6.3% rise in December 2016,
which marked the fastest rise in three years. Outbound shipments
rose by 270.1% for articles of apparel and clothing accessories, by
229.6% for coconut oil, by 104.7% for chemicals, by 66.3% for metal
components, by 64.8% for electronic equipment and parts, by 58.8%
for other manufacturing, by 27.9% for transport machinery and
equipment, and by 10.4% for electronic products. Sales of electronic
products, the top export earner for the Philippines increased by
10.4%. In contrast, exports decreased by 24.7% for wood products
(including furniture) and by 5% for ignition wiring sets used in all
forms of transport vehicles ( including aviation and maritime).

Exports to Mainland China increased by 23.6%, while exports to Hong

Kong increased by 20.7%, USA by 21.2%, Singapore by 16.8%, other
ASEAN countries 19.3%, and EU countries by 82.5%. In contrast, sales
to Japan, the previous top export destination for the Philippines,
decreased by 6.6%.

Imports rose by 9.1% year-on-year to US$ 7.44 billion in January

2017; this was lower than the previously projected increase of 13.8%
in December, which resulted in a decrease since October 2016.
However purchases increased by 79.7% for transport equipment and
iron and steel; by 42.7% for mineral fuels, lubricants and related
materials; by 30.6% for cereals and cereal preparations; by 28.6% for
miscellaneous manufactured articles; by 24% for telecommunication
equipment and electrical machinery; by 23.3% for plastics in primary
and non-primary forms; by 13.4% for other food and live animals;
and by 11.1% for industrial machinery and equipment. In contrast,
imports shrank for electronic products by 16.2% and for transport
equipment by 9.5%.

Purchases from China, the country’s biggest source of imports, went

up by 26.4%, followed by Japan 10.8%, South Korea 19.7%, and
ASEAN member countries 16.2%. Purchases from EU countries fell by
27.2% and imports from the US dropped by 6.9%.

Japan was the country’s top trading partner in 2015, accounting for a
total trade worth US$ 18.669 billion or 14.4% of the Philippines’s
total trade. Exports to Japan totaled US$ 12.301 billion, while
imports were valued at US$ 6.369 billion, posting a trade surplus of
US$ 5.932 billion. Electronic Products took the largest share of 30.2%
of the total exports to Japan valued at US$ 3.721 billion, followed by
Wood products (including furniture) at US$ 2.853 billion or 23.2%. In
comparison, majority of the imported products from Japan were
Electronic Products at US$ 2.193 billion or 34.4% and Transport
Equipment with US$ 962.86 million or 15.1%.

China was the Philippines’ second largest trading partner in 2015

with total trade worth US$ 17.646 billion or 13.6% of the total
Philippines-China trade. Exports from China totaled US$ 6.175
billion, while payment for imports was valued at US$ 11.471 billion;
this resulted in a US$ 5.296 billion trade deficit with China. From an
export viewpoint, the biggest sales to China were Electronic Products
valued at US$ 3.388 billion or 54.9% of the country’s exports to
China. Other Mineral Products followed with a total value of US$
683.41 million or 11.1%. Imported goods purchased from China were
made up of Electronic Products valued at US$ 2.418 billion or 21.1%
of the country’s total imports, with Iron and Steel following at US$
1.823 billion or 15.9%.

The USA was placed third, and accounted US$ 16.491 billion or 12.7%
in total trade with the Philippines in 2015. Exports to the USA were
priced at US$ 9.023 billion while imports totaled US$ 7.468 billion
and this reflected a trade surplus of US$ 1.554 billion. The majority
of the exports were Electronic Products valued at US$ 3.557 billion or
39.4% of the total exports to USA and Clothing Articles priced at US$
1.014 billion or an 11.2% share. Major inward shipments from USA
were Electronic Products valued at US$ 3.322 billion or 44.5% of the
total. Animal Feed ranked second and was priced at US$ 716.17
million or 9.6% of the total imports from the USA.
Benefits and Trade Details following Duterte’s visit to China in
October 2016

There were massive trade benefits for the Philippines, during the visit
last year by President Duterte, as he wrapped up the State Visit to
China, securing investment and credit line pledges amounting to US$
24 billion, or nearly double the initial amount reported.

Trade Secretary Ramon Lopez said, at the time, that the total amount
included US$ 15 billion worth of investment projects and US$ 9
billion in credit facilities. Earlier estimates had placed the total trade
package at US$ 13.5 billion.

There was apparently 17 extra trade deals, with a combined value of

US$ 11.24 billion that were signed following the meeting between
the two leaders, at an event organized by the Philippine Chamber of
Commerce and Industries (PCCI) and the Federation of Filipino
Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FFCCCI). Amongst
these extra deals were the following:

The Philippine mining firm Global Ferronickel signed a US$ 500-US$

700 million deal with Baiyin International Investment Ltd to construct
a steel plant, while Greenenergy Development Corp. signed a MOU
with PowerChina Guizhou Engineering Corp to develop a 300Mw
hydropower plant project valued at approximately US$ 1 billion.

Another Philippine company MVP Global Infrastructure Group Ltd

with a focus on joint investments with major Mainland Chinese
companies who are already operating in Malaysia, Vietnam and the
Philippines, also signed large (unspecified) investment deals. The
MVP Group also signed an MOU to establish a partnership with China
Railway Engineering Corp to build infrastructure investments projects
valued at US$ 2.5 billion.

There were projects with the Suli Group to invest in cabling

manufacturing facilities in the Philippines valued at US$ 3 billion, plus
a US$ 780 million contract for the Mega Harbour Port signed with
China Harbour Engineering Company to complete a 214 hectare
coastline project.

RELATED: The Philippines’ Relationship with ASEAN

Conclusion

It is obvious that the Philippines is rapidly improving its trading and

economic position with the ASEAN region, however with this, it
should be noted that there remain many difficult and large social and
related issues, that need to be tackled. The Philippine-China
relationship remains precarious, and mainly due to the maritime
disputes, as yet unresolved, and will of course reflect of the
Philippines economy and trade. The current President and his
Government do have a good and reputable group of economic
advisers behind them and without a doubt the Philippines economy
is rising from a previously poor situation. Its trade relations with
China remain of great importance, and despite all the issues
mentioned above, I suspect will continue to improve, hopefully to the
benefit of both countries.