The Spratlys dispute: Questions, Questions
by Bryant L. Macale
Published in PJR Reports, September-October 2011
The ongoing dispute between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) was in the news these past few months. But the coverage of the issue was sporadic and dependent on recent events, such as President Benigno Aquino III’s visit to China in August, the 60th anniversary of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of the country with the United States in the same month, the involvement of Japan—which is in another territorial dispute with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands in the East China Sea—in the Spratlys dispute following Aquino’s Tokyo visit in September, and Philippine efforts to forge a region-wide position on how to settle the claims on the Spratlys.
PJR Reports reviewed the coverage of the controversy from June 15 to July 27, when the dispute between the Philippines and China over the Spratlys was at its sorest point. PJR Reports reviewed the coverage of the BusinessMirror, BusinessWorld, Malaya, the Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard Today, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippines Free Press, Philippines Graphic, The Daily Tribune, The Manila Times, and The Philippine Star. Coverage by TV news programs during the same period was also monitored.
The monitor included a review of the coverage of specialized news organizations Bulatlat, Newsbreak, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Pinoy Weekly, and VERA Files. Reports from major news websites, such as abs-cbnnews.com, gmanews.tv, inquirer.net, and interaksyon.com were included.
Although efforts to provide background and context to the complicated Spratlys controversy were evident, much of the coverage left the big questions remained unanswered.
Some bright spots
Bandila, for example, explained on July 15 such daunting concept as the country’s “executive economic zone” (EEZ) claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Using the country’s EEZ claim under UNCLOS, Bandila reported, the Philippines has a stronger claim than China.
TV Patrol provided background information on the country’s Navy flagship BRP Rajah Humabon and newly acquired Hamilton Class patrol ship. The June 15 report also quoted experts such as Chito Sta. Romana, former Beijing bureau chief of ABC News, Rene de Castro, international relations professor at the De La Salle University, on the country’s need for diplomacy to settle the dispute. Romana and De Castro’s insights originally appeared on the ABS-CBN News Channel.
Last June 14, Bandila compared the Philippine and Chinese navies. It reported that China has 75 frigates and destroyers, 60 submarines, 55 amphibious ships, 85 missile-equipped patrol craft, and 300,000 Navy and Coast Guard enlisted personnel. The Philippines on the other hand has 120 patrol ships, an assault craft and logistics support vessel, and no submarine. The country has 24,000 men and women in the Marines and Navy.
As in the case of other complex issues, it was the columnists who provided the much-needed background and context. Inquirer columnist Ramon Farolan for example pointed out that the dispute started in in 1995 when the Philippines discovered Chinese-built structures in Mischief Reef on the Spratly Islands and reviewed how the controversy has evolved since then. (“Mischief Reef and ‘Love me Tender’”, July 18, p. A15)
Jay Batongbacal, an international marine environmental lawyer and Porfirio Aliño, a marine science professor, both of whom have done extensive field research in the Kalayaan Islands and the West Philippine Sea, wrote in an Inquirer commentary (“More than just oil in the West Philippine Sea”) that discussions on the West Philippine Sea should not just focus on the petroleum resources that are assumed to exist in the area.
Both Batongbacal and Aliño flagged readers on the bountiful marine fish catch in the area vital to the country’s food security. (July 25, p. A15). “The area is also a treasure trove of biological and genetic resources.”
“(Spratlys’) linkage to the marine environment of the Philippines and the entire Southeast Asian region establish a common interest with other nations and a basis of cooperation within the framework of international law,” Batongbacal and Aliño argued.
In his June 23 Standard Today column, lawyer Harry Roque Jr. said that the Philippine’s Spratlys claim may not be “iron-clad, ” as it is exclusively based on the assumption that the Spratlys were rendered “terra nullius” (without an owner) when Japan renounced its title to the islands after World War II.
But, said Roque, “the Philippines is the only country which has scientific evidence to prove that the bulk of the contested area constitute its extended continental shelf. This much we have proven in the (University of the Philippines/UP) Law Center’s Institute of International Legal Studies Project on the Extended Continental Shelf.”
“Further, as we are the closest claimant to the disputed islands, we are the only one that can claim a presumption of ownership over them. And as the only archipelagic claimant country, we have a monopoly to the claim that the islands, rocks, islets and waters surrounding them form part of our archipelago.” (“Tongpats’ and the Spratlys”) Roque compared the other countries’ claims and suggested measures the Aquino administration should undertake to strengthen the country’s Spratlys claim, including the need to revoke the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) tripartite agreement with China and Vietnmam and repeal the 2009 archipelagic baselines law.
In a June 30 Star commentary, intelligence and security expert Rommel Banlaoi analyzed the claims of various countries in the Spratlys (except China) and areas in the Spratly Islands they currently occupy. (“Clash of sovereignties in the Spratlys”)
Banlaoi’s analysis:
• Taiwan has identical, although complicated sovereignty claims with China;
• Vietnam, which occupies 21 islands, reefs, and cays in the Spratlys, claims “incontestable sovereignty” of two island-groups in the West Philippine Sea;
• The Philippines claims sovereignty and jurisdiction in the Spratlys within its Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) using the Roman principle of “dominium maris” and the international law principle of “la terre domine la mer”. The Philippines, which is second when it comes to most number of occupied areas in the Spratlys, argues that this position is provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);
• Malaysia, which claims 12 features but presently occupies six in the Spratlys, claims sovereignty Claim based on the continental reef principle outlined by UNCLOS; and
• Brunei, which does not yet ccupy any feature in the Spratlys, claims sovereignty based on the principle of Exclusive Economic Zone provided for by UNCLOS.
Rommel Banlaoi is the chairman of the board and executive director of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.
Larger questions
Although much of the press quoted goverment officials as saying that there is a need to review the Armed Forces of the Philippines Modernization Act (Republic Act 7898), it did not provide adequate background or raise serious questions on military reforms.
In his Inquirer column, Farolan wrote that the controversy once raised the need for capability upgrading of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. “What happened to the AFP modernization funds from the sale of Fort Bonifacio? I realize this will raise the hackles of some people but can anyone tell us where the money is or what it was spent for in terms of an AFP capability upgrade program—vehicles, aircraft, vessels?”
In a June 15 Asia News Network commentary in the Inquirer, former senior foreign undersecretary Lauro Baja doubted whether an “ideal proposal” such as a rules-based international system on the west Philippine Sea can actually work, especially since there will be concerns regarding enforcement, sanctions, or China’s claim on the entire area. (“Pursue diplomacy over troubled waters”, p. A23)
Most reports noted the military treaty between the Philippines and the United States, the 1951 MDT, which may prove a crucial factor in the controversy. But most of the reports and analyses did not explain the background of the treaty or the treaty’s nuances in the light of a possible military confrontation with China over the Spratlys dispute.
A few exceptions included Ellen Tordesillas’s July 1 column in Malaya which quoted former UP College of Law Dean Pacifico Agabin as saying that the “constitutional processes” stated in Article IV of the MDT (“Each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes”)means that the US president “must first consult with Congress before coming to aid of the Philippines in case of hostilities in the South China Sea.” Tordesillas also wrote that the row over Spratlys “could pave the way for the return of American troops in the Philippines.” (“Will Spratlys tension pave the way for US troops in PH?”)
The press also reported China’s diplomatic note to the United Nations, which insisted China has sovereignty over the Spratlys and accused the Philippines of invading some of the islands in the 1970s. Not much discussion of China’s claims was provided by the reports.
Neither did the press answer another crucial concern regarding the MDT—does the treaty really benefit the Philippines, or is it intended to serve the country’s old colonial master, the United States? “A cold war-vintage pact, the 1951 U.S.-Philippine MDT provides for mutual support against foreign aggression. But it was invoked by the U.S. only a few times for no other reason than to coerce Philippine participation in the U.S. wars in the Korea Peninsula and in Indochina,” the policy think-tank Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) wrote in an analysis last June 24. “It was also used to legitimize the onerous Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA, 1999) which allows the entry of U.S. forces in any part of the Philippine archipelago in the guise of joint war exercises. U.S. trainings under the VFA have been used by the U.S. to devise new counter-insurgency doctrines in Afghanistan, Iraq and other war-torn countries while maintaining permanent facilities in the Philippines as forward-deployed forces for military projection in the region. (“Living in the past: Mishandling the Spratlys territorial row”, Issue analysis no. 03, Series of 2011”)
The press could have provided more background on other issues it reported. For example, there were accounts that the Sultanate of Sulu was rejecting China’s claim over the Spratys allegedly because the disputed territory was part of the Sultanate long before the Spanish occupation of the country. But except for a few reports, little background on the Sultanate’s claims was provided in the reportage.
Conflict of interest
Some columnists commenting on the issue did not seem to realize that their comments and past involvements constituted a conflict of interest.
Standard Today columnist Gary Olivar wrote June 21 (“Eating crow”) that the current Spratlys controversy showed how Aquino officlas “will probably never outgrow their habit of endlessly blaming their predecessor for everything wrong under the sun.”
Olivar criticized Aquino’s lambasting the JMSU, a three-way undertaking signed during the previous Arroyo administration, which, according to Aquino, had exacerbated the controversy. “So why is this president now pointing his finger at this well-conceived initiative? Is he just trying to change the subject? Or, worse, is he again trying to blame someone else for something that was really his own fault?” he asked.
Olivar could have at least reminded his readers that he used to be one of Arroyo’s most ardent defenders as deputy presidential spokesperson for the former president. Readers have the right to decide if Olivar wrote his piece as an honest analysis of the controversy or if the commentary was colored because by his connection with the previous administration.
Editorializing
Some reports editorialized their coverage.
“The blame Gloria game has become much too ridiculous,” the Tribune began its July 6 headline “Aquino’s blame game escalates: Noy: RP-China conflict Gloria’s fault”. “Except perhaps for the devastation caused by typhoons that regularly visit the Philippines, especially at this time of the year, the rest of the country’s problems — past and present — are all caused by former President Arroyo in the eyes of President Aquino as he blamed her again, this time for causing the diplomatic row between the Philippines and China.”
The story reported how Aquino held the Arroyo administration responsible for approving the JMSU, which allegedly led to the worsening of China-Philippine relations with regard to their claims in the Spratly Islands.
Last July 5, the Inquirer noted that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) finally broke its silence on the China-Philippine row, criticizing China for its “arrogance” for repudiating the claims of other nations and rejecting multilateral talks with other claimants. The CPP also reproached the Aquno government for worsening the conflict by issuing “undiplomatic and agitative” statements against China.
Editorializing in the news columns, the Inquirer declared that “the CPP devoted much of its statement to its usual tirade against the United States for taking advantage of the conflict to promote its “imperialist” interests in the West Philippine Sea (or South China Sea).” (“CPP-NPA lashes at [sic] China for arrogance on Spratlys, PH for saber-rattling”)
[…] Ticket To Financial FreedomHighland Park Calendar for Sept. 29, 2011 – Virtual Baby GamesThe Spratlys dispute: Questions, Questions var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-22037011-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); […]
[…] The Spratlys Dispute Questions, Questions by Bryant L. Macale […]