Reporting the Scarborough disputeContext, context, context

By Bryant L. Macale
PJR Reports, May-July 2012 issue

 

ON THE news front burner since April, the Panatag Shoal territorial dispute between the Philippines and China escalated on April 10 in a tense naval confrontation between the two countries over what is internationally known as the Scarborough Shoal.

Panatag Shoal, which the Philippines also calls Bajo de Masinloc, consists of islands and reefs in the West Philippine Sea (or South China Sea) and about 198 kilometers west of Subic Bay in Luzon. Despite its small size, Panatag—with its potential for huge oil and gas reserves and importance in the freedom of the sealanes—has soured the relations between the Philippines and China as well as other Southeast Asian neighbor-claimants not only of islands in Panatag but of other disputed territories in the West Philippine Sea such as the Spratly Islands.

Incidents such as the April 10 naval standoff between the Philippines and China, China’s alleged refusal to resolve the Panatag dispute before the international court, and the response of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) sparked discussions on the region’s geopolitics and U.S. involvement.

The press coverage of the Panatag row added to the tension between Philippines and China and other countries in the Southeast Asia with inaccurate and incomplete reports.

War-mongering?

Because of the limited sourcing of the stories, the reports tended to escalate tension between the two countries.

Many reports, especially on whether to redeploy ships to Panatag as a result of the April 10 standoff, relied mostly on Philippine sources. For example, the Manila Standard Today reported the worries of Philippine military officials that China might establish structures or markers on the Panatag Shoal to bolster its claim to the area. (“Military wary of Chinese in Panatag shoal”, June 1) Much of the report, however, relied on two Philippine military officials who were not even named.

Malaya’s June 22 report (“Gazmin: Let’s return to Scarborough”) relied only on defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin’s assertion that he was “backing a re-deployment of government ships to the Panatag Shoal or Scarborough Shoal because Chinese ships are not leaving the area.” Gazmin said Chinese government ships were still at the shoal. The report did not cite any source for his assertion that China was not leaving Panatag, or if redeploying Philippine government ships would be a wise move on the part of the Philippine government. The Department of Foreign Affairs should have been part of this story.

Underexplored issues

The coverage did not include other issues raised by the conflicting territorial claims. The press would have done a better job by making the public aware of the basis of Philippine claims.

For example, the press could have expanded its discussion of the Island of Palmas case, which has been decided by the International Court of Justice in favor of the Netherlands because of effective jurisdiction and control despite Spain’s historic claim. The Philippines, which claims to have exercised effective jurisdiction and occupation of the shoal, is citing the Palmas case to prove its case for Panatag.

The press could have also reviewed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to which the Philippines is a signatory. According to UNCLOS, the shoal is within the country’s exclusive economic zone.

The Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the United States was discussed in the reportage, but not enough background information was provided. In the Panatag controversy, can the Philippines ask the US to step in under the terms of the treaty? If those terms apply in the case of Panatag Shoal, does this mean then that the US recognizes Panatag as part of Philippine territory?

And what are the geopolitical implications if the US joins in the territorial dispute between the Philippines and China? Would the US even think of a direct confrontation with China, which is now the world’s largest economic superpower after the US and which has robust trade relations with the former?

There was hardly sustained attention on the role that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) played on the controversy, which happened around the same time as the 20th ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh last April 2-3 and the 6th ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting last May 29. The press could have probed the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and why the formulation of a Code of Conduct on the declaration has yet to be finalized.

The press could have also looked at the connection between the corruption scandals that plagued the previous Arroyo administration and the Scarborough Shoal and Spratlys disputes. According to an April 17 ABS-CBNNews.com report, US embassy cables leaked by Wikileaks discussed the link between the alleged kickbacks former presidential spouse Mike Arroyo had received from the failed ZTE broadband deal and other Chinese-financed projects and the creation of the 2005 Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) agreement between China, Vietnam, and the Philippines over the Spratlys. (“WikiLeaks cables: Arroyo scandals affected Spratlys, Scarborough“)

Next Page>>