Who’s to blame for vote-buying?

 

 

Most Filipinos, especially the educated ones, have always blamed the poor for the kind of leaders they elect. To them, that we have corrupt leaders is the fault of those who willingly sell their votes to elect these people. As if bribery and vote-buying were legitimate while the poor who accept money in exchange for their votes are guilty as hell.

 

Thus, the dumbing of the electorate, majority of whom are poor, is the voters’ fault and not the handiwork of powerful and rich politicians. Why this upside-down view of reality?

Vote-buying in the Philippines. Photo by Photoville International.

We need to review our political history as a nation to fully understand why we have this skewed perspective of who we are.

 

In 1902, then U.S. Governor General of the Philippines William Howard Taft wrote a book, Political Parties in the Philippines, where he examined the historical development of Philippine political parties and analyzed the level of political maturity of Filipinos. Taft wrote that Filipino politicians have yet to learn the idea of individual liberty and the practical elements of a popular government. He recommended the establishment of a popular assembly, to be composed of affluent Filipino politicians, to serve as a training ground for self-government. This assembly became the Congress of the Philippines, and the Jones Act of 1916 created the Senate replacing the Philippine Commission.

 

The membership of the Philippine Congress then was oligarchic at the time, which makes the present-day Congress not that all different. A representative democracy that draws upon all classes in society did not develop and it was partly the fault of the American colonial rulers. The Americans did not change the Filipino social structure. They merely imposed a political system that allowed the existing social structure to gain political power. Taft’s idea of letting society’s affluent members constitute Congress resulted in the formation and circulation of elites that perpetuated their hold on political offices.

 

An oligarchic and elitist social structure was allowed to flourish by the American colonial rulers. In an article, “The Philippine Muddle,” for Harper’s Magazine in 1926, William Howard Gardiner, who also worked as a consultant to the U.S. Navy and State Departments, wrote that mostly Chinese and Spanish mestizos were able to absorb the new emphasis on English, academics and American political history in the school curriculum at the time. The great masses, the common tao, who were children of peasants, virtually were left out uneducated and uninstructed in anything that would help them live their peasant lives more effectively.

 

The mestizo politicos, otherwise known as ilustrados, would eventually lord over the wretched millions of ordinary people who were ruthlessly exploited and forced to be absolutely subservient. Assisted by politically-appointed justices of the peace and fiscals, or magistrates and prosecuting attorneys, these mestizo politicos would hold the common folk in servile bondage, while the chief politico in each barrio would tell them how to vote. While it was the result of natural mestizo cupidity, Gardiner wrote that “it has been possible only because of the political incapacity of the tao millions and because of American neglect and ignorance of Philippine conditions. But as the power to prevent or to correct is ours, we Americans and not the natives, whether politicos or taos, are at fault.” Instead of presiding over the evolution of a sound popular self-government, American colonial rule established the foundation for patronage politics which engendered the formation of oligarchic elites.

 

Now, to blame the poor or the “taos” for the corruption, bribery and vote-buying we have at present does not comport well with our political history. It is the elitist contempt of the uneducated poor that the self-denying educated classes propagate whenever they blame the masses for their political and economic misery, as if this condition is self-inflicted and there is no one to blame but themselves. On the balance of power, the perpetrator of corruption or the one who bribes and buys votes has all the necessary means to exploit the poor. The poor never get elected and the corrupt politicians maintain their stranglehold of power, which in turn they abuse to recoup the money spent for their election and to amass their illegal wealth.

 

Corruption in politics is not endemic to the Philippines. On a much larger scale, corruption is also prevalent in the U.S., the Philippines’ role model for governance since colonial times. It is even more worrisome in the U.S. because its Supreme Court has ruled that corporations in Citizens United are also people and have a right to free speech. This led one American writer to comment that “the Supreme Court has defined democracy as a branch of capitalism, right up to the point of actual vote-buying. And actual vote-buying is a pretty low-rent form of corruption anyway.”

The justices who decided the Citizens United Supreme Court case.

Citizens United struck down certain restrictions on political spending by corporations, which according to the U.S. Supreme Court, more particularly Justice Anthony Kennedy, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. What this means is that corporations are no longer restrained in spending millions in supporting the election of their candidates and their political programs as they are only exercising corporate speech which ought not to be censored.

 

In effect, Citizens United amounts to massive vote-buying, measured in millions of dollars spent by corporations in television advertisements and political contributions with the end in view of influencing the results of the elections. This gives corporations a very big right of speech while giving others a very small right. As a result, it damages equal citizenship, making corporations more equal than others. Worse, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, this is democracy at work.

 

Vote-buying in the Philippines thus pales in comparison to the limitless ability of American corporations to influence the electoral process. What has been made legal by a court decision, the other one is blameable to the poor for accepting the bribe. Both ways, they make a mockery of democracy.

 

Since accepting a bribe in exchange for a vote is illegal under Philippine law, it is interesting to find out how many have been actually charged and prosecuted in court. The height of hypocrisy is when there is a bigger number of people charged for accepting bribes than those politicians and their followers for bribing voters.

 

The common denominator between Citizens United and vote-buying in the Philippines is who has the money, the most amount of wealth that can be used to influence the election.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United affirms that those who have economic power, i.e., large private corporations, will always have the upper hand over the small citizen whose right of free speech is no match to that of the corporation in determining the result of the election. On the other hand, the oligarchy and wealthy families have more access to political power in the Philippines because they have the means to buy votes or even rig the electoral process in their favour. The poor have been made the scapegoat of the rich for the election of corrupt leaders as if they have a choice, their lack of discernment equated to their class status and lack of education.

 

Filipinos need to put a stop to this blaming game. It’s not the poor who are responsible for vote-buying and corruption. We need to build a foundation for a strong idea of democratic citizenship, one that is not just based on who has the money or wealth to buy votes to influence the elections. Otherwise, we will always get the kind of democracy we pay for, which is not much democracy at all.

Flunking history

 

 

As a student of history, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III gets a failing mark.

 

Recently, President Aquino compared China’s conduct of foreign relations on the simmering South China dispute with Hitler’s acquisition of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938. Aquino said the Sudetenland “was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”



Philippine President Benigno Aquino III. Photo by AFP.

Aquino’s statement was only partly correct insofar as the European powers at that time, Great Britain and France, agreed to let Czechoslovakia give up the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in order to avert another war in the continent. This was against the position of the US commission to the Paris Peace Conference which unanimously supported the unity of Czech lands, including the area of the Sudetenland that was occupied by ethnic Germans. Of course, Hitler eventually invaded and annexed Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich.

 

But where is the parallel between Hitler’s Sudetenland with China and the South China Sea dispute that President Aquino was alluding to?

 

The Sudetenland was inhabited by German-speaking ethnic groups and was driven by local nationalist sentiment to join the German republic. There was an impulse in the Sudetenland to rejoin Germany, unlike the islands and various rock formations in the South China Sea which are largely uninhabited by any distinct population or ethnic group. In fact, after the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of ethnic-speaking Germans escaped Sudetenland and resettled in West Germany. On the other hand, most of the islands being claimed by the Philippines, China and four other Asian countries remain submerged under water during high tide and are practically uninhabitable by people.

 

The South China dispute is a territorial conflict among several Asian countries which claim competing sovereignty over islands and rock formations, primarily because of their potential rich oil and mineral deposits. No claimant country is eager about going to war for the sole reason of asserting sovereignty rights. The dispute could be considered a flashpoint for a wider armed conflict, but that’s all there is to it—not necessarily an impetus for war.

 

Comparing China with Hitler’s aggressiveness in acquiring the Sudetenland is obviously inflammatory and contrary to negotiating a settlement through diplomacy. President Aquino is simply fanning the flames and outrage against China’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea. Again, as a loyal American boy himself, Aquino is serving the interests of the United States for being the spokesperson for containing China’s rising hegemony in Asia and the Pacific.

Crisis in the South China Sea. Photo by UNCLOS and CIA.

President Aquino is emboldened by a mistaken belief in the illusion that the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States will save him from his belligerent rhetoric against China. This defence agreement is a moribund instrument, signed by the two countries at the height of the Cold War in 1951, for the sole purpose of limiting the spread of communism in Asia. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the decline of the threat of communism in the 1990s, the menace of communism has totally receded, even in the face of the local communist-inspired insurrection by the New People’s Army (NPA).

 

Like the former US bases in the Philippines, the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States serves only as a magnet to foreign aggression. Instead of seeking accommodation and modus vivendi, President Aquino has been animated by the US commitments expressed in this 1950s vintage Cold War origin security treaty, which is backed by US-Philippines joint military exercises under the US Visiting Forces Agreement.

 

During her visit to Manila on November 11, 2011, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on the 60th anniversary of the Mutual Defence Treaty that “the US will always be in the corner of the Philippines. We will always stand and fight with you to achieve the future we seek.”

 

It was the most gratuitous, yet unconstructive declaration by the former Secretary of State, that could be deemed provocative and ill-conceived given the practice of the United States not to take sides and be involved in regional conflicts in Asia and the Pacific.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to the Philippines
which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the nations' Mutual Defence Treaty.

But the US mutual obligation under the treaty in the event of a foreign invasion is more illusory than real. Reading the fine print of the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty would show that it is not automatic for the United States to come to the defence of the Philippines in case of hostilities with China. Under Article IV of the treaty, in case of an armed attack in the Pacific, both parties must act in accordance with their constitutional processes before introducing their armies into any hostility. Thus, the treaty is not “self-executing” or binding on the United States unless its Congress enacts an implementing law to commit the US military.

 

Besides, the treaty expressly refers to an armed attack in the Pacific, and the South China Sea, arguably, is not part of the Pacific.

 

President Aquino would not have the audacity to rile China with his blunt, careless, and undiplomatic statements if not for the mirage of the US military coming to defend the Philippines in case of war. This is also true in the case of Japan. The Japan-China dispute would probably not have escalated to its current level by Japan provoking nationalization of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, if not for assurances of applicability of the U.S. defense commitment to the disputed islands.

 

North Korea’s provocative development of nuclear weapons and other acts of belligerence are also clear examples of how these US defence treaties operate in escalating conflict rather than promoting détente. The presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula serves in limiting China’s willingness and ability to exert pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

 

At present, US servicemen join the Armed Forces of the Philippines on a rotating basis throughout the year, not only in military exercises but also in the latter’s campaigns against NPA and Muslim secessionist rebels. The U.S. also maintains some 28,500 servicemen and women in South Korea and some 34,000 uniformed personnel plus dependents in Japan. Two major U.S. air force bases and the Futenma Marine Air Base occupy a large part of Okinawa. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is also headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan.

 

To the eyes of any intelligent observer, the presence of U.S. military in Asia and the Pacific has therefore become more of an attraction for foreign aggression and an irresponsible shield used by leaders of these countries in promoting belligerence and a rationale for going to war.

 

The alliances built by the United States with the Philippines, Japan, and Korea clearly represent a dangerous remnant of the Second World War, and particularly the Cold War that has long since ceased to be justifiable under any reasonable scenarios. All countries in the region would probably enjoy greater stability and security if these alliances were dismantled and U.S. military forces withdrawn.

 

These mutual defence commitments, and the ongoing negotiations between the United States and the Philippines in Washington for a new military framework agreement, are stoking the bluster in President Noynoy Aquino’s immature broadsides against China, even to the extent of misinterpreting history. While the Aquino government has been proclaiming the need for a rules-based and peaceful settlement of the South China Sea dispute, it continues to undermine this process by unnecessarily portraying China as a bully and Hitler-like in dealing with its smaller and less powerful neighbours.

Amboys and the American empire

 

 

Some pundits and self-proclaimed Filipino patriots abroad, particularly Filipino-Americans writing in the United States whom we will refer to here as Amboys, are simply satisfied with the orthodoxy of a dictionary definition of sovereignty. To them the Philippines is a sovereign state because it is independent and self-governing, according to the dictionary.

 

But the basic lesson from the past hundred years tells us that our country has not fully achieved the upper limits of its political legitimacy – that of a nation-state. From the Philippine Revolution of 1896 to the restoration of democracy after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1984, the political reality is we have remained as a vassal of the great American empire. This is very clear, if not directly, through the control and influence over our nation’s economy by big multinational firms and their surrogates by way of the local oligarchic elite, the country’s virtual dependence on the US military for protection from foreign invasion, and the complete Americanization of the culture and minds of Filipinos.

 

Sovereignty in a nominal sense is not what the definition envisages. Neither is sovereignty in an aspirational sense good enough.

 

Well, this kind of opinion will be dismissed by these aforementioned Amboys as hogwash, ultra-nationalistic, or even communist-inspired. But what really is behind this anti-nationalist hysteria and revival of communist-baiting?

 

The United States Military has been well-loved in the Philippines, thanks to the
Americanization of our culture and minds that makes us believe America will
always help us against foreign invasion. Photo courtesy of the US Navy.

American hegemony in Asia, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, started to wane beginning in 1991 when the US waged the Gulf War to repulse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the closing of US military bases in the Philippines. At the same time, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption during the 20th century, made it easier for the United States to close its military bases in the Philippines, particularly the US Naval Base at Subic Bay, the largest overseas military installation of the United States Armed Forces. From 2001 to 2003 until the present, the US military has focused its intervention to the Afghan and Iraqi wars, in addition to the continuing Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestine and other Arab countries.

 

It was also during this time that China started to emerge as a major power player in Asia. Many international observers have also begun to entertain the possibility that the People’s Republic of China could emerge as a second superpower with global power and influence on par with the United States. Others also predicted that China will become the world’s largest economy by 2021, and will surpass the United States as a military superpower within twenty years. All of which is not good news to America, so its drum- beaters like the Amboys are sounding the alarm of a possible Chinese invasion in the event of war with China as the territorial dispute heats up over islands and other land formations in the China Sea, or the West Philippine Sea as far as the Philippine government is concerned.

 

These Amboys, more rabid warmongers than their local counterparts in the Philippine press, have pointed to the ratcheting of China’s claim over territories in the South China Sea and its more recent regulations restricting fishing by foreign vessels in the disputed areas as clear and present danger of future military escalations. They have denounced those who have supported the closing of US military bases in the Philippines in 1991 and the present campaign for the abrogation of the current RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement as short-sighted Filipino nationalism. To them, these Filipinos do not understand that the Philippines is utterly defenceless against foreign invasion without the help of the United States.

 

They even mocked and denigrated Filipino nationalists who have taken a different political perspective on the assistance provided by the United States Navy to victims of last year’s super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda. Short of calling these critics of US military presence in the Philippines as ungrateful or “walang utang na loob” in local parlance, these Amboys would rather see the US be given access to basing rights. Their argument is that this would preserve the sovereignty of the Philippines and its territorial integrity.

 

But how do we exactly preserve our country’s sovereignty by giving in to US basing rights? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

 

The Amboys’ assumption is that the US military will come to our defence if we were attacked by a foreign enemy – basically the same expectation we have from the moribund RP-US Mutual Defence Treaty which was signed by the two countries during the height of the Cold War. Even then at that time the presumption of mutual defence has already been doubted and the US can only offer us very vague assurances that they will honour their mutual obligation under the treaty.

Philippines-US Mutual Defence Treaty relations. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Our history of bilateral agreements with the United States had always been skewed in favour of the latter, which only shows that the more powerful party to an agreement always wins by getting what it wants. Take for example the Laurel-Langley Agreement, which essentially tied the economy of the Philippines to that of the United States. The greater freedom to industrialize while continuing to receive privileged access to US markets failed to materialize as our economy never really took off from being agrarian-based.

 

Then we have the Parity Rights Act, an amendment to the 1935 Constitution granting Americans equal rights with Filipino citizens to own, develop and exploit the country’s natural resources and to operate public utilities in the country. The Act was required by the US Congress in exchange for reparation after World War II. It was approved during the 1947 plebiscite which the then Roxas government argued would be mutually beneficial to the US and the Philippines. Of course, this was not true.

 

In 1974, Parity Rights to American citizens were terminated and the right to patrimony was restored in the Philippine Constitution. However, there is now an impetus to amend the Constitution to allow foreigners equal rights with Filipino citizens to exploit and develop the country’s natural resources in order to attract more foreign investments in the country.

 

Now, the Amboys are leading the way in allowing the US military to have basing rights in the Philippines on the pretext that it will protect and preserve our sovereignty, especially against Chinese aggression and imperialist advances. This is a very shallow argument. The Philippines is never a threat to China’s core sovereignty. China’s aggression in the South China Sea is aimed at asserting sovereignty over islands and land formations whose ownership is disputable. We are on the same footing as China and the other countries claiming sovereignty rights over these disputed territories. The determination of the dispute will probably take a long time and military overtures, either by China or the Philippines (with the help of the US military), will not help in achieving a peaceful and lasting settlement.

 

What the Amboys have so far accomplished is to influence the so-called Asian pivot in American foreign policy in Asia and the Pacific that will counter the threat of Chinese hegemony. They have become America’s boisterous cheerleaders, who are willing to offer their souls for the renewal of America’s empire in Asia.

 

Here is a sample of one of these Amboys’ comments regarding the South China Sea dispute and US bases in the Philippines:

 

“These nationalists believe that without US bases on Philippine soil, China would spare us in the event of war with the US. Wrong! Without US bases, the Philippines would be the first to be attacked by China if war broke out with the US. It was proven that China seized Panganiban Reef and Scarborough Shoal without firing a shot. What does it take for China to seize Palawan and Mindoro?”

 

“Heck, the Philippine armed forces couldn’t even defeat the NPA and the Muslim rebels!”

 

Let’s deconstruct the particular Amboy’s argument.

 

This Amboy argued that without US bases in the country, the Philippines would be attacked in the event that China goes to war against the US, a scenario not supported either by history or actual Chinese expansionist policies. Compared to American military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and previously in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and Central America, China’s military aggressiveness in the South China Sea is only a recent phenomenon. Besides, the disputed territories in South China Sea are also claimed by other several countries.

 

Palawan and Mindoro cannot be compared to the Panganiban Reef and Scarborough shoal because the former are not disputed territories and officially belong to the national territory of the Philippines. The truth is that no country has a clearer sovereignty right over the islands in the South China Sea, such that their ownership is disputed by several countries.

 

This Amboy also seems to suggest that we need the US military to intervene to help the Philippine armed forces defeat the NPA and Muslim rebels.

 

It beguiles logic and common sense that these Amboys would easily surrender our sovereignty rights to the United States in order to counterbalance the growing influence of China in Asia and in the world, yet still consider such act as helping to preserve our sovereignty and protect our territorial integrity. To them, giving in to US basing rights is not surrendering one’s sovereignty if the objective is to restrain China’s hegemonic rise.

By all means, sacrifice our pride and integrity as a nation –this is the price of sovereignty these Amboys are willing to pay.

Nature of giving

 

A survivor carries water in typhoon-ravaged Tacloban, Leyte. AP Photo/Vincent Yu.

Natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons (or hurricanes in this part of the world) awaken the better angels in people almost everywhere. For whatever loss of life and property and other dire sufferings these disasters may have brought upon their victims, people opening their hearts and wallets in order to give will always share equal time and space in the retelling of the story and of how people helped others in the aftermath.

 

Super typhoon Yolanda (or Haiyan) which hit the Philippines last Friday is a great example. This is not to forget or belittle the efforts of those who’ve helped victims of typhoons in years past. News and images on TV, print media and the Internet are enough to arouse people to understand and empathize with the victims.

Police line up bodies for processing in Tacloban, Leyte, Philippines. CNN photo.
Click link http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/world/asia/typhoon-haiyan-vignettes/ to view
"Typhoon Haiyan: Scenes of devastation, calls for help."

Giving and helping tell us that we all want to make the world a better place, despite of all the deaths, the losses and the destruction. People will rebuild from the ashes, if they need to. That’s the clear message we’re getting, no doubt about it.

 

Reading through social media, including Facebook, can make one sad, however. Despite all good intentions, there will still be those among us who would capitalize on the Yolanda wreckage to promote their personal agenda.

 

For some, this has become a prized opportunity for self-promotion, to put themselves back in the limelight and corner every chance to appear on TV to announce the laudable efforts they have launched to help the typhoon victims.

A survivor walks past a cargo ship washed ashored  by Typhoon Haiyan in
Tacloban, Leyte. AP Photo/Vincent Yu.

Still others would take advantage of this opportunity to further divide the community, such as the case in Toronto, for example, where the Filipino Canadian community is currently beset by a pestering internal strife among the local community press, with some reporting on the reporters and the personalities instead of on the issues and events that the community should be aware of. Rather than restoring civility in the community, this type of community journalism practised by some only makes us the butt of jokes and the laughing stock among Toronto’s visible minority.

 

What could be worse is when some people tell you to donate to them or to their organizations, instead of using the more tested and reliable international relief agencies such as the Red Cross, primarily due to their ideological distaste of these organizations, and because of issues of transparency, honesty, and whether the help really goes to the people who are in need.

 

The magnitude of Yolanda’s wrath and damage clearly shows the need for logistics, an effective organization, and available equipment to clean up the debris that currently block the path of relief agencies and workers. These agencies need to reach the victims first and foremost. Even the national government, with its entire military at its command, cannot handle Yolanda’s aftermath to the satisfaction of their critics and the people they intend to help.

A man sits crying on a packed aircraft in Tacloban. CNN photo.

So when some groups tell you not to give to the Red Cross, for example, because the organization is headed by a career politician, that kind of message not only dampens the enthusiasm of potential givers but also leaves a bitter taste to the act of helping itself. Instead of joining others in helping our poor and suffering compatriots, these individuals and the type of talk they spread dampen the collective relief efforts. They only politicize the act of helping others, and communicate a self-serving message that only through them, and no one else, can you help the victims of Yolanda.

 

This is the time to set aside political differences, whether you are from the right or left of the spectrum. The victims need help, and they don’t care where this is coming from.

 

This goes too for groups who are taking Yolanda’s destructive aftermath as a soap box to promote arguments that global warming or climate change is the main culprit and we should take immediate steps to restore earth to its original nature. While the argument may be valid, it loses its great appeal because it’s not the kind of talk that the people really need to know now. There is a time, and we should give ourselves that time, to debate on man’s profligate nature and habits for we cannot afford any longer to wreak havoc on the earth around us and bask in the knowledge that nature will continue to be benevolent to us.

 

The power of the people to give and to lend an extra hand to those in great need cannot be underestimated. It is during these times of disasters that we are tested. To care for others is part of our culture and nurture. But to ply our own agenda on how to give better, or where to give, and how we can achieve the greatest impact, we need not resort to negative messages but instead allow everyone the free will to go to what’s deepest in their hearts.

Scarborough Shoal forever

 

Mostly rocks just below water at high tide, the Scarborough Shoal about 123 miles west of Subic Bay has become a rallying cry for born-again Filipino patriots. Led by a U.S.-based group who call themselves USP4GG, or U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance, these misguided flag-waving loyalists from the United States and Canada will be staging international protests wherever there are Chinese consulates in the world against China’s bullying tactics particularly against the weaker and smaller Philippines.

One self-proclaimed leader in the Filipino community in Toronto even has the gall to ask those who have not participated in a rally in their life to savour their first opportunity to join the protest on May 11 in front of the Chinese consulate. As if many of us have not experienced a protest march or anything similar during our younger days in the Philippines, to deplore the Marcos martial law regime for instance, or to protest rising tuition fees when we were university students. As if joining their protest would be a transformative highlight in our lives, awakening us from our docile nature to become freshly-anointed political activists. Perhaps, they are the ones who had never walked before in sweltering heat or rain on the streets of Manila to show their indignation to a government that had betrayed its people.

Follow link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voj-uiyvfR0&feature=related
to view interview with Chito Sta. Romana, former ABC News Beijing Bureau
Chief, on Scarborough Shoal stand-off.

Such a charade of love of country just for a few rocks submerged under the sea. Rocks which are uninhabitable and incapable of sustaining human habitation or economic life, that the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the very law that the Philippines is anchoring upon its territorial sovereignty claim to the Scarborough Shoal, describes these rocks as having no exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf. Well, it happens that the Philippines is the closest country to the Scarborough Shoal and, by common sense, according to these people, these rocks must be ours. This commonsensical thinking is now pushing us to the brink of war.

Interestingly, these new Filipino nationalists are trying to match up with the Chinese in a war of words. However, there’s a wrinkle to this Filipino bravado. At the same time that they would issue provocative statements against China, they would also shamelessly beg for American help, asking for more aircraft, boats and radar systems which the Armed Forces of the Philippines can use in the face of an escalating territorial dispute with China. Again, as if the United States would do them the favour even if there was supposed to be a mutual defence pact between the two countries. On the contrary, U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton has said that the U.S. will not take sides in the conflict, stressing that it prefers a peaceful settlement instead of the use of violence in resolving the impasse.

The Scarborough Shoal or Scarborough Reef was named after a tea-trade ship, Scarborough, which was wrecked on the rock with everyone perishing on board in the late 18th century. To the Chinese, the shoal was known as Huangyan Island while to Filipinos, it was called Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc. Like most land formations in the South China Sea which include the Paracels and the Spratlys, these groups of islands or rocks have been the subject of competing territorial sovereignty claims. Both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) lay claim to the Scarborough shoal after the Chinese Civil War. In 1997, the Philippines joined in this dispute, making its claim to the shoal. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted the Philippine Baselines Law of 2009 (RA 9522) which classifies the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal as a regime of islands under the Republic of the Philippines.

As I have written in my earlier posts about the disputed claims in the South China Sea, the dispute is more than a mere squabble over territory. The enormous reserves of oil and natural gas in these islands and  around their waters are fueling the territorial claims of these countries. Whoever is successful in establishing its sovereignty claim will have the potential to produce over a billion barrels of oil.

The UNCLOS, contrary to popular belief, is not the controlling law in the determination of sovereignty over land formations in the sea. It is concerned only with maritime waters and delineation of boundaries, not with sovereignty issues.

Under the UNCLOS, and this is what is commonly misunderstood, the country that holds valid legal title to sovereignty over their islands have exclusive right to exploit living and nonliving resources within twelve miles of their territorial sea and 200 miles beyond known as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). But even if the Scarborough Shoal or the Spratly Islands is within the Philippines' EEZ from its coastline, it is not enough to acquire jurisdictional rights. It must first satisfy the sovereignty conundrum. At the core of the dispute is the question of territorial sovereignty, not law of the sea issues.

The competing sovereignty claims of six different countries to the Spratly Islands and now the stand-off between the Philippines and China in the Scarborough shoal have important ramifications to the United States insofar as its intention to remain a power in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently declared that America was pivoting to Asia, a critical foreign policy decision now that the U.S. has lost its military bases in the Philippines which were closed in 1992.

In shifting its attention to Asia, the United States is restructuring its military strength in the region from establishing a new submarine corps base in Port Darwin in Australia to rotating military presence in the Philippines. This has the effect of making China the specific target for Pentagon’s global security programs, very much similar to America’s previous design of creating a missile interception network in the whole of Europe, which unnerved the Soviet Union during the Cold War between the two superpowers.

From a practical point of view, the Chinese are not about to rush to any military confrontation with the United States. China is in no position to challenge the U.S. because of the huge disparity in power. All signs, however, clearly indicate a new cold war is emerging as both countries try to avoid any direct confrontation in the high seas.

The United States is much more interested in dealing with the issue of human rights violations in managing its relationship with China, which Beijing suspects was aimed at challenging the ruling legitimacy of the Communist Party. Right now, the U.S. is in a deep predicament about its tense diplomatic situation with China concerning Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese dissident lawyer and human rights activist who sought refuge in the American Embassy in Beijing. Although Mr. Chen has left the embassy in order to be treated in a hospital in central Beijing, he told reporters that he and his family feel insecure in the hands of Chinese authorities, and would like to go to the United States. To date, the U.S. government has offered a visa for Mr. Chen to pursue his studies in the United States.

Mr. Chen’s fate remains in the centre of this diplomatic firestorm between China and the United States. President Barack Obama is already on his re-election campaign mode and whatever happens to the negotiations between the two countries regarding Mr. Chen’s future will surely be exploited by the Republican Party presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as political ammunition against the current administration’s ineffective or inconsistent record of dealing with China’s human rights violations.

Philippine protesters over Scarborough shoal belonging to the Akbayan party.

So, what is it that these new Filipino patriots in the United States and Canada really want to achieve with their global protests against China? For certain, the United States has already made known its position that it will not take sides in the Scarborough shoal stand-0ff, with or without the Mutual Defence Treaty with the Philippines. Raising the level of rhetoric against China will not bring other nations to the side of the Philippines, especially in view of its shameless mendicancy to the U.S. policy of re-establishing its hegemony in Asia and the Pacific region, something that doesn’t sit well with the other members of the ASEAN.

The Philippines risks itself of becoming a pariah in its own backyard. Rejected by the United States, its wishful ally, and treated with suspicion by its neighbours.

All that the protesting Filipino patriots in the U.S. and Canada could accomplish is to rally well-known personalities to their cause: former politicians, civic society leaders and movie and entertainment stars. These are the people the organizers of the protest are all too willing to shove into the limelight, not the ordinary people who would really carry their protest placards and march in the sweltering heat of a noon-hour protest. As if these personalities would be ready and willing to play heroes—to offer and sacrifice their bodies to the enemy in order to defend our country’s territorial sovereignty for a few rocks submerged in the sea.

Spratlys war of words must stop

Overlapping territorial claims to the Spratly Islands by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei have escalated the conflict in this region to a new high. China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, the three most assertive in their claims, have engaged in naval clashes before and there is prospect of more in the future.

United States cruisers operate in the South China Sea. Photo by Former Navy Gallery.

While China and Vietnam continue to flex their muscle by staging military exercises in the South China Sea, the Philippines, the weakest military-wise, is not to be outdone. With U.S. troops and naval ships under the Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the United States, both countries have been conducting their military games a few kilometres away from the disputed islands, prompting Beijing to complain that the exercises were an indirect offence to China’s sovereignty.

More than a territorial dispute

Clearly, this is more than a mere squabble over territory.

Ever since reports were published that the Spratlys may be sitting on enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, the jockeying between these three countries has never been more intense. China appears to be the most eager to lay its hands on Spratlys oil. Its booming economy needs the vast energy resources that Spratlys can provide. Vietnam and the Philippines can surely make use of Spratlys wealth to provide for their country’s needs.

The disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Photo by Google earth. Please click
the following  link to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CDMSOGaRY,
"The South Cina Sea: Troubled Waters."

A 1969 United Nations report indicated probable rich hydrocarbon deposits in the Spratly Islands. The international oil industry has compared the Spratly petroleum deposit to an elephant with the potential to produce over a billion barrels of oil.

Each of the claimant countries shapes their claim on a variety of arguments, ranging from historical evidence of discovery and occupation to arguments based on international law principles and the UNCLOS provisions. Every state is sticking to their territorial claim of sovereignty, which for the most part is weak but no one is willing to budge.

The evidence presented by China, Taiwan and Vietnam to support their historical claims is unconvincing, if not dubious at most. Their evidence merely illustrates their countries’ intermittent contact and brief occupation of the islands. The same is true with the claims of the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei which all suffer from factual weaknesses and legal misinterpretations.

Sovereignty claims are driving the Spratly Islands conflict to the edge of brinkmanship. It is now a war of words between China, the Philippines and Vietnam. This sabre-rattling must stop if they want a reasonable and equitable settlement of their dispute. Otherwise, they face the possibility of a military confrontation. In the end, whoever has control of the Spratly Islands will have hegemony in the entire region.

International case law

Two cases in international law are worth reviewing in regard to the conflicting territorial sovereignty claims over Spratly Islands.

The Island of Palmas case, decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1928, set forth the factors necessary in establishing territorial sovereignty over an island. In Palmas, the case is about the conflicting sovereignty claims of the United States and the Netherlands over an isolated, but inhabited island located between the Philippines and the former Dutch East Indies. The U.S. claimed that Spain originally discovered Palmas Island and subsequently ceded title to the United States under the Treaty of Paris.

The United States also based its claim on the island's contiguity to the Philippines. The Netherlands, on the other hand, claimed sovereignty based on their peaceful and continuous display of state authority over the island.

The court awarded Palmas Island to the Netherlands and held that the mere act of discovering an island results only in inchoate title and does not suffice to establish sovereignty unless the discovery is followed by a continuous and peaceful display of authority or some degree of effective occupation.

In contrast, the Permanent Court of Arbitration held in the Clipperton Island case that France's discovery and declaration of sovereignty in a Honolulu journal were sufficient to establish sovereignty over an uninhabited atoll. The court concluded that in some instances, where the territory claimed is completely uninhabited, the requirement of effective occupation may be unnecessary.

The Clipperton case involved the sovereignty claims of France and Mexico over an uninhabited atoll located off the coast of Mexico. France argued that a French Lieutenant claimed the island on behalf of the French government in 1858, while Mexico claimed ownership by way of cession from Spain.

The Clipperton Island case is relevant to the Spratly Islands dispute because the islands are similarly isolated and uninhabited. However, higher standards for effective control may be applied in the Spratly Islands dispute because of the number of claimant countries involved and the complexity of their claims. The International Court of Justice also held that when an ambiguity exists, actual displays of authority, evidence of possession, and acquiescence by other states to the exercise of sovereignty are of decisive importance in determining sovereignty issues.

Each of the countries in the Spratlys dispute has made attempts to occupy the islands. Taiwan, for example, has continuously occupied Itu Aba since 1956, and Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, China and Brunei have each controlled several features of the archipelago. These occupations most likely satisfy the Palmas standard of a continuous display of authority. Other claimant countries, however, have protested and not acquiesced to these sovereign displays.

UNCLOS has little impact

In 1982, the United Nations United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted. While UNCLOS embodies customary international law and governs practically every aspect of ocean management, it is of little impact in the Spratly Islands dispute since it fails to provide specific guidelines for delimiting maritime boundaries, especially where there are overlapping claims. The only guidance UNCLOS provides is that boundary disputes involving the continental shelf or exclusive economic zone (EEZ) shall be resolved by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to achieve an equitable solution.

Both China and Vietnam have rejected Philippine challenges to elevate the Spratly Island dispute to a special tribunal created under UNCLOS for maritime disputes or to the International Court of Justice. It is rather obvious that China and Vietnam would have difficulty substantiating the legal basis for their claims. However, China is agreeable to a joint undertaking to explore Spratlys’ natural wealth but only on a bilateral basis.

Possible joint development zone

Settlement of the Spratlys dispute by an international court or tribunal appears to be beyond the immediate horizon. The only alternative, which may work in the best interests of all the countries, would be to establish a joint development zone. Previous studies in the past have stressed the need to implement more confidence building measures among the claimant states. There was also a proposal made to establish a three-tiered joint development agreement, consisting of twelve separate joint development zones.

More than fifty years have passed, yet the settlement of Spratlys dispute appears headed nowhere. The Spratly claimants, perhaps, can learn some lessons from the negotiations over the Timor Gap, originally between Australia and Indonesia, and later between Australia and East Timor, when the latter seceded from Indonesia to become an independent state.

Originally known as the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on the zone of cooperation in an area between the Indonesian province of East Timor and Northern Australia, the treaty provided for the joint exploration of petroleum resources in a part of the Timor Sea seabed which was claimed by both countries. East Timor at the time was invaded by Indonesia and was annexed as its province. The negotiations between Australia and Indonesia and the ultimate signing of the treaty were criticized as Australia’s de jure recognition of the Indonesian invasion and annexation of East Timor.

Lessons from Timor

When East Timor seceded from Indonesia in 1998, a new treaty was negotiated resulting in the Timor Sea Treaty. Although the negotiations over Timor Gap had a long and complex history, Australia and independent East Timor have generally accepted that the issue of East Timor’s maritime boundary is much less important than the wealth that could be generated for the new country by the exploitation of the Timor Sea resources.

Cumulative oil slick footprint in the Timor Sea, August 30, 2009. Photo by Sky Truth.
Please click the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XyatkST4m8 to
view "The Timor Gap - East Timor."

The new Timor Gap Treaty which was signed on July 5, 2001, guaranteed that the East Timorese and Australian economies would both benefit from the sea’s oil resources, instead of keeping a protracted conflict over which country owns the seabed and has jurisdiction to its resources. Time will tell when the issue of sovereignty shall again arise between the two countries since no one is willing to give ground on its respective position, although anything is possible once the oil is gone.

Spratlys’ competing states could similarly opt to follow the Timor Sea Treaty framework. Exploit the archipelago’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas, share the fruits among them based on their permanent economic interests to their territorial claims, and decide on the sovereignty conflict later, perhaps after all the oil is gone.

Both international law and the UNCLOS fail to provide a definitive answer to the Spratly Islands dispute. Any solution, however, will take time. By agreeing to a provisional joint development plan that will benefit every claimant state, the countries will at least be able to jointly and equitably exploit the natural resources of Spratlys, or until they can agree on a more permanent solution.

U.S. proxy war with China imminent in the Spratlys

 

Of all the competing claims for territorial sovereignty to the Spratlys, the Philippine claim is the strongest and most compelling.

Based on the criteria of discovery, occupation and settlement, and jurisdictional rights outlined under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), the Philippines can make a more solid case than either China or Vietnam, the two other countries that are also asserting their claims over a potentially oil-and-other-minerals-rich Spratlys.

Filipinos in Toronto rally before the Chinese Consulate, July 8, 2011, to protest
China's encroachment in Philippine territory in the Spratly Islands. Click link to
view :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTkQSbYmJU (Spratly Islands).

Recent reports that China is shipping a giant oil rig to start drilling in the hotly-contested Spratly Islands have enraged concerned Filipinos, particularly those living in the United States and Canada, to protest on the streets in several cities which observers believe could draw U.S. involvement in the escalating South Sea China conflict.

With China’s recent aggressiveness near the Spratly Islands, the Philippines ran to the United States to invoke the moribund 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty which made it obligatory for one to defend the other, when the latter is being attacked.

The United States government, with its usual diplomatic double-talk, made reassurances that it will not abandon the Philippines should the Spratly conflict further intensify. Senator John McCain publicly exhorted his government to extend stronger diplomatic support to an ally in the face of China’s bullying tactics.

During a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario, Secretary Clinton committed to defend the Philippines and emphasized that the U.S. would provide the Philippines with reliable military hardware so it can upgrade its capability to defend its territories in the South China Sea.

U.S. to beef up military response

It must be recalled that when the United States closed its military bases in the Philippines, China declared the whole of the South China Sea in 1992 as a part of its internal waters. The U.S. reaction was ambiguous as it stressed its neutrality on the Spratlys issue. It only changed its posture when the Chinese occupied the Panganiban (Mischief) Reef in 1995, prompting the U.S. to fashion a new type of military response through the Philippine-American Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to justify the presence of American troops conducting joint and combined military exercises with the Armed Forces of the Philippines in its territories.

The global war on terrorism in 2001 further gave impetus to American military presence on Philippine soil. China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea is now viewed not only as a security challenge but more of a military threat.

Map of Spratly Islands, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1996. Click link
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgh-ydvXqo&feature=relmfu,
to view "The Meaning of Military Exercises in South China Sea."

It was in this context that many observers interpreted Secretary Clinton’s robust commitment to defend the Philippines in the South China Sea as a clear indication of the U.S. intent to remain and exert a strong military presence in the region.

China, on its part, has asked the United States to stay away from the regional conflict, thus signalling what many have observed as the beginning of a US proxy war with China in the South China Sea, particularly on Philippine battleground.

What is a proxy war?

A proxy war is not really a full-scale war and it works best during a Cold War, when there are no real armed hostilities. It results when opposing powers, such as the United States and China, use a third party like the Philippines as a substitute for fighting each other directly. A proxy war does not necessarily lead to full-scale armed hostilities, especially when two superpowers do not wish to fight each other directly and would not risk an escalation to a bigger and more destructive conflict.

From a strategic perspective, some political observers in the region are viewing the ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea as not just a battle for maritime rights over oil and other mineral resources.

Many affirm that these disputes pose a real test to the emerging regional structure dominated by an ever-growing Chinese influence due to its robust economy, on one hand, and the shrinking U.S. clout in the region, on the other.

Security, in addition to oil, is another incentive in the Spratlys dispute. The Spratlys have long been considered as strategic bases for sea-lane defence, interdiction, surveillance and potential launching sites for land attacks.

The United States has very significant national security interests in maintaining unimpeded transit rights—on the surface, in the air and under the sea—throughout the South China Sea, especially to protect Japan in the event of hostilities. It seems unlikely for the U.S. to voluntarily accede to China’s supremacy over this part of the world without getting major concessions that will enhance its security interests. U.S. involvement becomes even more imminent due to pressures from its allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea to counter the growing threat of a Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

Daixu, a strategic analyst at the Chinese Energy Fund Board, has written that a Sino-U.S. proxy war is absolutely not alarmist. Quoting from the work of the American scholar Wei Lianen, he wrote that “expansion through war is in the nature of the United States….it has been transformed into a belligerent Sparta state.”

Popular opposition to China’s intimidating behaviour toward the other claimant countries in the South China Sea augurs well for American involvement in the regional conflict. It provides the United States with the opportunity and justification to enter into the fray, thus ensuring its strategic economic and military presence in the region.

A study conducted by Rand Corporation has recommended that the U.S. government beef up its military forces in the region and shift its security strategy from north to south. The Rand proposal envisions the integration of the Philippines into a new comprehensive security partnership along with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and Thailand to prevent the rise of a dominant regional power (like China) that could undermine America’s role in the region.

Philippines caught in tug-of-war

U.S. involvement in the Spratlys dispute will further entrench the PHL-U.S. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and deepen the participation of the Philippines in American military operations in the region. Since the VFA was signed in 1999, several war exercises between the two countries have been conducted in Palawan or just a few kilometres away from the disputed Spratly islands, which Beijing protested as an indirect offense to China.

In August of this year, the Philippines and the United States are meeting to review their little-used mutual defence pact and consider U.S. access to its former military bases in the country. According to many observers, all these can be viewed as U.S. initiatives to revitalize and entrench its military involvement in the region.

Filipino demonstrators march during a protest rally in front of the US embassy in
 Manila,  opposing  joint military exercises. Photo by Francis R. Malasig/EP. Click
link to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66V8JQRKDxI&feature=relmfu,
" The Balance in the South China Sea."

Loud and boisterous protests by overseas Filipinos against China’s aggressive stance in the South China Sea are playing into the hands of the U.S. government. Global Filipinos are giving the United States a welcome invitation, which if not carefully dealt with, could undermine or short-change the long-term economic interests of the Philippines in the Spratlys.

Need to assert national sovereignty

During the Philippine celebration of Independence Day last June 12, Vencer Crisostomo, chairman of the national youth group of Anakbayan, denounced Philippine president Noynoy Aquino for begging for U.S. intervention in the Spratlys dispute. The youth leader said, “Their script is predictable: on the grounds of China’s bullying, we will ask for help from our supposed long-standing ally, the U.S. First, we will be given more arms, then more U.S troops, and then eventually the return of U.S military bases.”

“We should assert our national sovereignty on our own terms, instead of allowing ourselves to become the battleground of a U.S proxy war with China,” Crisostomo added.

The trajectory of Filipino protests against China, therefore, must be redirected, not against China’s show of military muscle in the region, but against its continuing refusal and arrogance in refusing to recognize the claims of the other nations, and its bull-headed objection to a multilateral settlement of the conflicting territorial claims. China’s intransigence is the cause of the present stalemate. Absent China’s cooperation, however, the disputes will remain for generations and this could engender a de facto military occupation by whoever has the military wherewithal.

Promoting a multilateral solution

At the same time, the protests should also target American entrenchment of its military goals and operations in the region. Continuing U.S. presence will only exacerbate the tense atmosphere in the South China Sea, which could potentially trigger a military confrontation in the region.

Instead of hyping up the Spratly Islands conflict by issuing provocative and agitative statements, the Philippines can take the lead in promoting a peaceful and multilateral resolution of the Spratlys dispute by the Southeast Asian nation-claimants, without U.S. intervention.