Misguided Filipino patriotism and the new American thrust in the Pacific

 

 

Last week, I happened by chance to read two articles on the Internet written by two Filipinos about the Tubbataha Reef incident involving a wayward US navy ship and the claim of the Philippine government for ownership of certain islands and rocks in the South China Sea, namely the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal.

 

What prompted me to read the said articles was the faint hope that I would be reading something interesting, intelligent and informative, perhaps, a new insight on the ongoing South China Sea dispute between China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. This nearly-half-a-century dispute had caught my interest way back when I was enrolled in a course in international law in Toronto.



On January 17, 2013, the USS Guardian ran aground on Tubataha Reefs in the
Sulu Sea, causing significant damage to the marine environment.

One article was written by Perry Diaz, a Filipino-American based in the US while the other by Ducky Paredes, a Filipino columnist of Malaya, a Manila-based newspaper, and both articles appeared in the former’s Global BALITA website. To my dismay, I found both writers without any clue about the legal arguments in the dispute, both being non-lawyers and who were simply expressing their opinions out of raw emotions of love of country and headstrong notion of nationalism. Not that there’s anything wrong in expressing their individual points of view, but the aforementioned articles smack of pretence of knowing what the complex legal issues are.

 

What is being disputed in the South China Sea is not necessarily law of the sea issues as many have been led to believe, thus, the public misconception that all that matters here is where a country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) lies, or what essentially covers the length and breadth of the continental shelf. Or which country is closest in distance to the disputed territories, the nearest having the most logical putative claim.

The South China Sea. Map courtesy of wikipedia. Click link to view "Standoff at
Scarborough Shoal" by AlJazeera,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R28-b-nNtR0

The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is by itself a very complicated legal document that codifies maritime jurisdictional principles which member countries must adhere to. But international legal experts are in unanimous agreement that UNCLOS does not confer a legal title of sovereignty over territories in the oceans. The issue of sovereignty is to be determined by international case law, past decisions, and precedents.

 

I am not going to regurgitate my personal views on the South China Sea dispute for I have already expressed them in previous blogs. My only concern is the impudent tendency for others like Messrs. Diaz and Paredes to lose objectivity in their arguments and let their emotions rule instead of reason, and for them to invent a version of the facts that is farthest from the truth.

 

In the first article, “A Tale of Two Reefs,” Perry Diaz peddles the falsehood that the Philippine government decided to bring the dispute to UN arbitration because it is unable to defend its territories and recover those already lost to China’s aggressive de facto occupation. If you believe Mr. Diaz, you would imagine Chinese troops having landed on Philippine soil, raised the Chinese flag, and occupied and exercised control over some of its territories. Everyone knows this is not true, yet if you tell Mr. Diaz that what he’s saying is inaccurate, he will call you a traitor (a Makapili, to use his words) and pro-Chinese. Exactly what he told me when I sent my comments to his article, even suggesting that I look foolish because of my arguments, which perhaps was only the first time he has ever heard of contrary opinions to his writings on the web. Mr. Diaz has the temerity to even suggest that perhaps I didn’t know where the Spratly archipelago is, in addition to belittling my knowledge of the facts and the law about the ongoing dispute.

 

When it comes to the USS Guardian, an errant minesweeper that ran aground and damaged the Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea, Mr. Diaz did not hesitate to laud the efforts of the US Navy to repair the damage and its willingness to pay the fine for unauthorized entry. The Tubbataha Reef is a protected marine habitat and considered a World Heritage Park by UNESCO since 1993. It is home to more than 1,000 endangered coral and fish species and marine vessels are prohibited from entering the area.

Explore the beauty of one of the world's natural wonders by visiting the Tubbataha
Reefs Natural at http://www.tubbatahareef.org/home, "The Spell of Tubbataha."

Mr. Diaz even thumbed down President Noynoy Aquino’s initial reaction to the incident while attending a conference in Davos, Switzerland, which was obviously made for its sound bite that the United States government should comply with Philippine laws. That the wayward US warship violated the country’s ecological laws, so the US government must pay for damages.

 

Mr. Diaz also chastised some progressive groups in the Philippines, which he brands as “leftist,” for quickly condemning the United States for the incident as a violation of Philippine sovereignty and demanding a review of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the US and the Philippines. Yet these groups, Diaz said, have been astonishingly quiet about China’s aggression against the Philippines. On his part, President Aquino had toned down his earlier pronouncement and clarified that the US warship was in Philippine waters not as part of military exercises between the two countries under the VFA. Of course, this was contrary to reports that the USS Guardian had just come from Subic and was on its way to conduct patrol operations near Palawan where US warships often sail within Philippine territory.

 

Interestingly, Mr. Diaz would ask “What would they [the leftist groups] do if one day they wake up to see an armada of Chinese warships in the Sulu Sea on their way to Puerto Princesa?” I thought Mr. Diaz already admitted earlier that the Philippines was helpless in defending its territory and recovering those it already lost to China, that it had to ask the United Nations to intervene.

 

In his article “The enemy within,” Ducky Paredes would repeat the errors of Mr. Diaz in concocting lies in order to stir up anger and rage against those who happen to disagree with their opinions. Mr. Paredes would call these Filipinos as the fifth column of the Chinese Army.

 

Mr. Paredes wrote: “I really do not mind any Pinoy demonstrating against the Americans. If that makes them feel good about themselves, they should just go ahead, But we are in a dangerous situation today. China looks very much like it is preparing for war and, if it is, we must be wary of our local Communists who would probably prefer their comrades taking over this country from the Filipinos….China has disputes with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and us. Without the US, the People’s Republic could take us all over—in the Philippines, with the help of its local band of gangsters—the New People’s Army. Wake up, Philippines!”

 

This is pure and simple anti-communist hysteria, the kind of dirty propaganda waged by the government after the Japanese occupation of the Philippines up to the time of martial law under Ferdinand Marcos. It didn’t work then; it will never work now. When truth can be manufactured, it is not difficult to discern the real truth from falsehood.

 

According to some reports, the USS Guardian ignored the warnings over the radio of the Tubbataha Park Rangers. When the ship ran aground, American soldiers trained their high-powered weapons at the rangers who approached the US warship and barred them from coming near the ship or boarding it.

 

The Tubbataha Reef incident is not the first time US warships have violated Philippine waters. In fact, today US warships roam freely all over the country under the VFA to conduct military exercises and patrol operations. To Messrs. Diaz and Paredes, this is perfectly all right because the US ships are on Philippine waters to protect us from Chinese aggression.

 

Military confrontations have already flared up between China and Vietnam, and between the Philippines and China, because of the South China Sea dispute. If such provoked skirmishes continue, they could possibly trigger a regional war, or even a war on a global scale. While ASEAN countries have been trying to achieve a peaceful resolution of the South China Sea dispute, the United States, however, has declared a foreign policy pivot which it called the “American Pacific Century,” boosting American military presence in the Philippines, Australia and the South China Sea region.

 

To most observers, the growing military presence of the US in the South China Sea is part of America’s policy of containment to encircle China which would set limits on China’s growth as an economic, political and military power. China has been reacting to the US military build-up by becoming more aggressive in its claims over the disputed areas in the South China Sea, thus increasing the possibility of future hostilities between the countries in the region.

 

The Philippine government, however, is being duplicitous in making its sovereignty claims over territories in the South China Sea and denouncing China’s aggressive tactics while allowing US military intervention and giving the United States Navy carte blanche to use the Philippines as the base for its anti-China operations. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States, President Noynoy Aquino has allowed the US to regularly dock its warships, station and operate its surveillance drones, set up its communications infrastructure, carry out intelligence and combat operations, support and participate in counter-guerrilla warfare—all in outright violation and contempt of Philippine sovereignty.

 

For their part, Messrs. Diaz and Paredes have both shown their willingness to fully embrace American intervention in the South China Sea as if only the United States has the wherewithal to make peace in the region. Aren’t we hearing from the US declaration of the “American Pacific Century” the echoes of the not-too-distant past of America’s Manifest Destiny that made us the first colony of the United States? Are we sliding backwards to assimilate another attempt by America to re-colonize us?

 

What the Philippines should do is to continue building solidarity with ASEAN countries to advance a regime of neutrality and demilitarization in the whole region and the pullout of all US troops from the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and in the entire Asia-Pacific. Not to kowtow with the most powerful country in the world in an effort to contain the rise of another superpower, not only in the Asia-Pacific region, but one that could rival its hegemony in the world today.

False patriotism

The simmering dispute in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China has unfortunately divided the expat Filipino community in the U.S. and in Canada. All because the organizers of the Toronto protest against China’s bullying tactics last May 11 were disappointed by the turnout, which was so paltry that the organizers have now questioned the patriotism of the Filipino community.

Heated exchanges swamped the Internet between the rabid supporters of the Philippines’ claim and those perceived as against or maybe fence-sitting because they are either ambivalent or just didn’t care. To the point that doubts have been raised as to the true motives of the organizers and those who begged to differ were outrightly discredited for their irrelevant shortcomings in the past, not for the substance of their opinions.

Fight for freedom poster. Courtesy of Charles Pictures.

What is really appalling in the attitude of the protest organizers and their supporters is their idea of patriotism, in how one should express love of one’s country. If you are not with them on the Scarborough Shoal or Spratly dispute, you’re declared a coward, a deserter, a traitor, or an apologist for China. A Toronto protest-organizer even denigrated members of the Order of the Knights of Rizal for not meeting the test of nationalism when it counted. Some members of this group are older folks who fought the Japanese in World War II. With one sweeping generalization, the protest organizers stripped our local heroes of the valour and courage they had shown as patriotic Filipinos during the war. Because they did not show up during the China protest, these war heroes have suddenly turned into traitors and cowards by the chest-thumping new patriots. The South China Sea dispute should not be used as a wedge to divide the Filipino community, or worse, as a litmus test for one’s patriotism.

Listen to the words of Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto del Rosario as he called for patriotism and sacrifice among Filipinos when he spoke about the Scarborough Shoal dispute recently: ““We need to get our people to bond together. We need to unite. We need to take a position of patriotism that what is ours is ours and we will stand for it. And it is possible that we may be tested and if we are tested, it is possible that everyone will need to make a sacrifice.”

Mr. Del Rosario’s words smack of patriotism at all costs, no matter what. This is exactly the type of patriotism demanded by the Toronto protest organizers and their followers, which is not patriotism but collective narcissism. What the USP4GG and its organizers in Toronto are asking every expatriate Filipino is a type of narcissism where one has an inflated self-love of his or her own group.

Patriotism and the call for people to rally around a social or political cause are oftentimes abused during times of conflict. It is easier to divide people into two or more groups when faced by a conflict of choice. When the subject of loyalty, particularly to one’s country is invoked, the easier it is to manipulate people’s emotions and this often clouds their decisions. It doesn’t matter which side is right or wrong, what really matters is you show your love for your country. The most important thing is to be a patriot – one whose ruling passion is the love of his or her country no matter what.

It is the false kind of patriotism that is being engendered by the Scarborough Shoal issue. The 18th century English author Samuel Johnson has described this sort of patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. This is of course a pretty dangerous slur to throw around. One needs to have evidence to accuse someone of being a scoundrel but how often is this statement applied today to political and social movements.

If you happen to espouse a different view like junking the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States because you believe in self-determination, you’re likely to be branded as pro-communist. If you insist on sending the U.S. troops out of the Philippines because you believe the Visiting Forces Agreement between the two countries is unfair and one-sided, you’re likely be deemed a supporter of the local insurgents and the Moro separatists. If you happen to think that the best way to resolve the South China Sea dispute is by mutual and peaceful negotiations between the countries involved because you believe the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not apply, then you’re likely be labeled as pro-China, unpatriotic and a deserter.

If you happen to be an immigrant in Canada and you blame the Philippine government for its failure to provide you with a decent job and a good standard of living for your family as the principal reason for leaving, then you’re likely be considered disloyal and disrespectful to your country of birth. If you happen to be in Canada and criticize the Aquino government for its complicity with human rights violations, like forced disappearances and extra-judicial killings, you’re likely be identified as a supporter of the National Democratic Front or the New People’s Army.

But if you are an overseas worker or a live-in caregiver in Canada and you happen to support the Aquino government despite its shortcomings and double-talk, you’re likely be hailed a new hero. If you joined the China protest in Toronto last May 11, you are a patriot and you have every right to blame the rest of the Filipino community for not showing up, including the right to call them cowards for their willingness to give up their land without a fight. And if it happened that you could not leave your work that day to be in the protest, you’re still a bleeping coward and have no love or affection for your motherland.

This is what Samuel Johnson meant by his famous quotation, “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” It’s easy to become a demagogue and appeal to loyalty to one’s own country in order to gain public approval and political power. Those who disagree are cast as unpatriotic and hostile to the interests of their own country. Honest disagreement becomes character assassination. Love it or leave it becomes a powerful political argument. Johnson should have written instead that patriotism is the last refuge of an idiot, for it is more likely to bump into patriotic idiots than patriotic scoundrels.

A famous quote from Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism the last refuge of a
scoundrel." Click image to view "Ron Paul: Patriotism is the last refuge
of a scoundrel," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MceylBArzzg

Patriotism is not love of country right or wrong. Certainly, it is far different from saber-rattling or chest-thumping. It is not patriotism at all when leaders blame the rest of the community for not showing up, but taking out one’s personal frustrations on others. It is a way of absolving oneself of responsibility for the failure to inform and mobilize the community to your cause.

Patriotism accommodates differences of opinions. It allows dissenting voices to be heard. One of the many slogans during the anti-Vietnam war movement in the Sixties is “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” It is supporting the government when it is right and opposing it when wrong. It is not merely waving a flag, singing the national anthem or attending a rally.

Patriotism means loving your country, but not being blind to the truth.

Stoking fears of China

A blogger and columnist for a Philippine newspaper wrote recently that the closure of the U.S. military bases in 1992 left the Philippines “defenceless against our enemies.” He was referring to the apparent helplessness of Filipinos to stand up alone to the Chinese threat, or to say it less mildly, to China’s arrogance and bullying tactics with regard to their territorial claim to the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

About 300 Filipino demonstrators rally at the Chinese Consulate in Makati against China's
 aggressive tactics in the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. Photo by AFP/Ted
Aljibe. Click link to view "Filipinos Protest China-Philippines  Naval Stand-off,"
 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/05/201251144447223660.html 

In his column “My China Phobia,” he wrote, “If we still had the U.S. military bases in our territory, would Chinese trawlers and other fishing vessels dare enter Philippine seas? Without the U.S. military bases in our country, the Chinese and just about everyone else can enter our territory with impunity and forage in what should be our exclusive 200-mile ocean.”

Exactly what the aforementioned Filipino blogger/columnist and a few expat Pinoy protesters from the U.S. and Canada have in mind in internationalizing the dispute in the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands, by giving the United States the necessary reason to re-establish its previous control of the sea lanes in the South China Sea and the whole of the Pacific.

It was in 1992 when the U.S. navy left Subic Bay that China started to expand its territorial claim to almost the entire South China Sea. By that time, China has redrawn the extent of its territorial breadth, covering virtually all the islands, atolls, reefs, and rocks and their surrounding waters and encroaching on parts of the sea that other countries in the region also straddle. To date, six countries have made competing territorial claims to the islands and other land formations in the South China Sea and the dispute is being escalated by military threats and war of words.

There are at least four observations we can make from the South China Sea dispute and from the spectacle of loyalty to the motherland by the handful of Filipino expatriates before the Chinese consulates wherever they are found in the world.

First, with respect to the competing territorial claims of China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei, nothing has been settled and each country’s claim is what it is: an outstanding claim that is not validated, determined by an international body, or acquiesced to by the other countries. Therefore, no country has a better right than the other. Everyone is on equal footing, although not necessarily if one considers China’s military and economic wherewithal.

No matter how vociferous Filipinos are in asserting their sovereignty over the islands and rocks in the South China Sea and in expressing their boundless patriotism, this is not going to help establish their claim. We cannot truly state that China, for example, has violated our territorial sovereignty in the Scarborough Shoal because those rocks submerged in the sea are not yet ours. The same goes for China and the rest of the other countries.

The impasse cannot be resolved by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) since this is a not a law of the sea issue. At the core of the dispute is who has sovereignty to these islands; therefore, it is a political conundrum. Until the sovereignty issue is determined, the provisions of UNCLOS on delineating boundaries such as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf are held in abeyance. All this talk about the 200-mile EEZ of the Philippines is nonsense as we have not established our legal right or title to own those islands and rocks in the disputed sea. The criticism of China’s territorial claim that likens it to Italy owning the whole of Europe or Africa because it was part of the Roman empire of yore is gibberish. We are talking of lands in the sea which are yet to be occupied or settled and governed with continuous authority, not of lands which are already subject to sovereign rule. Besides, the UNCLOS is only concerned with maritime waters, not with land formations which can be subject to territorial sovereignty claims.

Second, the sudden interest of expatriate Filipinos in the United States and Canada in the South China Sea is rather suspicious, if not apparently being orchestrated by the U.S. government itself together with their lackeys like Fil-Am lawyers Imelda Nicolas, Rodel Rodis and Ted Laguatan, organizers and leaders of the U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance (US4GG). While the true Filipino nationalists and patriots are demonstrating in the streets at home and before the American Embassy in Manila demanding the removal of U.S. special forces stationed on Philippine soil under the Visiting Forces Agreement, the USP4GG partisans are silent about American military intervention in the government’s campaign against local insurgents and Moslem secessionists in Mindanao. The USP4GG condemns China’s invasion of Philippine territories in the South China Sea, which is untrue, yet welcomes the presence of the U.S. military on Philippine soil.

Where is their true love of the motherland when they denounce China’s make-believe intrusion in Philippine territory but embrace America’s direct and actual intervention in the country’s affairs? While Filipinos in the Philippines are demanding the scrapping of the Mutual Defence Pact and the Visiting Forces Agreement with the U.S., USP4GG diehards, on the other hand, call for reinforcing these agreements by encouraging a greater build-up of American military muscle in the South China Sea.

Filipinos protest against U.S. troops under the Visiting Forces Agreement between the
Philippines and the United States. Photo by nicabil. Click link to view "Militants slam
 plan for more troops in the Philippines," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjt18T5_YWQ

Third, in shifting its foreign policy interest to Asia and the Pacific, the United States needs to restructure its military strength, especially its navy, from Australia to the Philippines in order to rein in the expanding influence of the Chinese military in the region. The U.S. military is now establishing a submarine base in Port Darwin in Australia and is also engaged along with the Philippine armed forces in actual hostilities against local insurgents and Moro separatists, even in regular military exercises in the South China Sea with its allies from the region. The South China Sea is therefore crucial to U.S. navigation and it cannot afford to simply let China control the sea lanes that are necessary for the U.S. navy to respond quickly to threats to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, the countries of vital interest to the United States.

This is also why the Obama administration has pushed the U.S. Senate to approve the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea treaty. The U.S., which has withheld ratifying the treaty since its adoption 30 years ago and the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council not a party to it, now believes the pact is necessary to protect the U.S. Navy’s right to carry out exercises off the coast of China. Ratification of the convention has been held over concerns among some congressional leaders that the treaty threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives the United Nations too much control over oil and other mineral rights. U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told U.S. lawmakers that ratifying the UNCLOS will ensure that U.S. warships, commercial vessels and aircraft have access to where needed.

And fourth, there appears an apparent wave of Sino-phobia that is being stoked by the U.S. and its allies in Asia and the Pacific. China has become an infinite source of fear and loathing characteristic of the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.

Among Asian countries, China-bashing is nothing new. There is long history of resentment against the Chinese by other Asians because of their economic success as immigrants, particularly in Southeast Asia. Ethnic Chinese, for example, constitute more than 1.3 per cent of the total population of the Philippines but they control 60 to 70 per cent of the Philippine economy. This figure however does not include Chinese mestizos who have been part of the Filipino middle class since the Spanish colonial period and immigrants from the People’s Republic of China after 1949. Add them and Chinese Filipinos are one of the largest ethnic groups in the country, comprising about 22 per cent of the total population. President Noynoy Aquino’s mother, Cory Cojuangco-Aquino, also a former president, was a Chinese mestiza. In addition, all the wealthiest billionaires in the Philippines are Filipino Chinese or of partial Chinese descent.

It seems easier therefore for Filipinos to whip up fears of China’s threat of expansion or invasion rather than incite anti-Americanism despite the reality that U.S. forces are already operating on Philippine soil. After the Japanese, the Chinese have never warmed up to the hearts of Filipinos, although hardly can one detect the difference between the ethnic Filipino and the Filipino Chinese. The Americans are acclaimed as heroes by most Filipinos and they are looked upon as protectors even though that is now far from happening.

The USP4GG protests against Chinese aggression in the Philippines are obviously a smokescreen for bringing back the mighty American military in the South China Sea. Their protests are a disguised form of patriotism, a charade of love country, when in fact they are actually selling the Philippines short, just as the Philippines has agreed before to sign on with unfair and one-sided treaties with the United States.

Unfortunately, our historic animosity to the Chinese is fueling the drive to bash China when the latter’s post-Mao government does not seem to have any interest in grabbing territory from its neighbours, or in promoting revolution or spreading a dangerous ideology. Rather, China seems more focused on its internal development, especially its experimentation with the capitalist system albeit centralized state control.

On the other hand, the United States, which has a history of military expansionism, seems bent on re-taking control of the South China Sea, to add to the 9,000 miles of coastline on the Pacific Ocean, which is effectively owned and operated by the U.S. Navy. Led by the USP4GG, misguided Filipinos abroad are helping and abetting the United States achieve its objective, and they call this an act of patriotism.

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.

National hubris

 

The standoff in the South China Sea is exposing the true colours of Filipinos, at least those who still shamelessly cling to America for help in times of threat to our country’s sovereignty. I’ve read an opinion posted in my alumni e-group which says that as much as we want to break the American influence upon us, there is no one who can really help us but America.

Here I am referring to the Philippines’ territorial claim over the Spratly Islands which is also contested by five other nations that straddle the South China Sea. In fact, the Philippines has stopped calling it the South China Sea and would rather have it called the West Philippine Sea. I’m not very sure we can rename a sea without the agreement of other countries which have referred to that sea by its name on the map for a number of centuries.

Ownership of the Spratly Islands is highly debateable and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) according to many legal scholars has no meaningful provision that could settle the sovereignty claim between the disputing countries. The effective alternative to establish territorial sovereignty is occupation and permanent settlement, which is exactly being done in small efforts by China, the Philippines and Vietnam, and of course, by oil explorations to the extent possible without military harassment. Presently, these countries have military reinforcements in the South China Sea to protect their territorial claims while all the rival countries are attempting to solve the impasse by diplomatic means.

U.S. decommissioned BRP Gregorio del Pilar ship enroute to the Philippines from
 Alameda, California to help the Philippine Navy patrol the South China Sea. Photo
 courtesy of  Bytemarks. Click link to view "The South China Sea: Troubled Waters,"
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEbIv2ZxKuI&feature=related

The Philippine government has been the most vociferous in seeking American military support. To date, it has received a decommissioned naval vessel from the United States to help in reconnaissance and maritime patrol. In a meeting with the South Korean president recently, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III has also asked his counterpart for aircraft, boats and other military hardware to help the Philippine military in its territorial dispute with China over the Spratly Islands. Obviously, the other countries which also have territorial claims to the Spratly Islands are relying on their respective military resources.

Compared with the other countries, the Philippines does not really have an effectively functioning navy or the significant equivalent of an ample military force that could protect its territorial claim. Hence, why it has been unabashedly making overtures to the United States government for help.

China has fleets of submarines, frigates, and destroyers and, much recently, an aircraft carrier. Vietnam also has a number of submarines, like Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. In addition, Thailand has a small aircraft carrier.

The Philippines has one of the longest, and perhaps, the deepest harbours in the world where a strong navy can thrive. Subic Bay used to be the refuelling and repair station of the U.S. Seventh Fleet. But the American government was only interested in establishing military bases on Philippine soil for use of its military rather than in helping the Philippine government develop a self-sufficient military infrastructure for defence purposes. Even the moribund mutual defence treaty between the United States and the Philippines provided no concrete assurance that the U.S. would come to the defence of the Philippines when threatened by foreign invasion.

When the military bases were closed after the termination of the agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines, the U.S. government found an alternative to keep its presence in the Philippines as part of its military campaign against terrorism. Now the U.S. government has deployed its special forces to help the Philippine military combat the local communist insurgency and Moslem separatists in Southern Mindanao, both considered terrorists by the United States. Through a Visiting Forces Agreement, both the U.S. and Philippine military have conducted joint exercises in waters close to the South China Sea, in a way reinforcing the territorial claims of the Philippine government to the Spratly Islands.

Philippine Navy Special Forces on training exercises with U.S. Special Forces in
South China Sea. Photo courtesy of LightAj.

The barefaced idea, however, that only the U.S. government can help the Philippines in its territorial claim to the Spratly Islands is only promoting dependency on a foreign power and entrenching the historical subservience of the Philippines to its former colonial master. This Philippine mendicancy shows we’re willing to fight foreign aggression tooth and nail to preserve our sovereignty but we’ll allow American intrusion anytime. It’s not that there’s no other country which can help us, it is that it is only the United States which can help us.

Even before the Americans took the Philippines as its first colony on the eve of the twentieth century, the country’s national hero Jose Rizal had already predicted the coming of the Americans based on his reading of the observations by a German traveller named Feodor Jagor. Jagor was already prophesying the commercial growth and industrial development in America and it was just a matter of time for the nascent U.S. power to claim its share of colonies in the world.

Since the Americans established its foothold in the Philippines, it has always been based on its permanent economic and military interests in the region, never for altruistic reasons. The unequal treaties, between the two governments, whether economic or military, were always lopsided in favour of the U.S. government. Contingents of Filipino soldiers were sent by the Philippine government in Korea and Vietnam to fight along with American soldiers the creeping communist powers north of these two countries. The Philippines also sent troops to fight with Americans in Iraq. In return, the U.S. government has been providing foreign assistance, mostly money and decommissioned equipment to the Philippine military. Where the financial assistance actually went will not surprise anyone given the pervasive corruption in the country.

The Visiting Forces Agreement between the Philippines and the United States gives an excuse for American troops to be involved in the fight against the communist insurgents and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. There are even talks between the two governments for the re-establishment of U.S. bases in the Philippines, and with the South China Sea being part of America’s pivot foreign policy, military bases in the Philippines would again be on the front and centre of American presence in Asia and the Pacific.

There is today a growing consensus among European nations to end their dependency on American military protection. This is highly inconvenient to U.S. President Barack Obama who needs all the help he can get, even from small allies, if only for political reasons. With the fall of the Soviet Union and America’s decision to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has found itself without a clear goal and a common enemy. Postwar Europe has always tended to fall in line with Washington’s security policies, and this is what kept NATO going since 1949.

A military alliance like NATO without a clear common enemy is almost impossible to maintain. Europeans are now realizing that the only solution to their military problems is to reduce their dependence on the United States and take greater responsibility for their own defence. With the Americans being less and less able to be the world’s policemen, European governments are struggling to define their common interests which are unlikely to be best represented by a seemingly endless war with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

At the same time, the Americans have also realized the need to refocus their foreign policy and military strategy to confront the rising threat of Chinese hegemony in Asia and the Pacific, which explains why the U.S. considers the South China Sea as vital sea lanes to its navy and for commercial and trade routes. The military exercises between the U.S. and the Philippine military have also concentrated in protecting oil rigs in the South China Sea, obviously in anticipation of Chinese aggression.

While European nations and other countries for that matter are beginning to see the folly of dependence on American military protection, the Philippines is a rare exception. Military dependence on the United States is a very clear policy of preserving the historical subservience of the Philippines to its former colonial master. Already without a strong national culture because of too much American influence on the values and habits of Filipinos, losing one’s national pride in exchange for military consideration is not a hard bargain to make. It’s probably much easier for the American government to mobilise Filipinos to join the army to fight the Chinese in the event of a confrontation in the South China Sea than asking Americans to risk the blood of their soldiers without the solid backing of their citizens.

The subservient attitude of Filipinos to American interests is almost like a national hubris, a basic precondition of Filipino-American relationship. Where the American flag goes, so there goes the Philippine flag, too.

American sailors on Rest & Recreation with Filipino girls in Manila. Photo
courtesy of  Chris Koerner

Some militant members of the Philippine Congress, and they are just a miniscule few, have cautioned against bringing the mighty U.S. army to the South China Sea conflict. Theirs is the most honourable position every Filipino should take: to assert sovereignty and territorial integrity over Philippine territorial waters but not allow any foreign country, be it China or the United States, to exploit our waters and its resources for their economic, military or hegemonic interest.

Our record of mendicancy only proves that as a nation we are not capable of self-government. When foreign aggression confronts us, we always tend to cry on the shoulders of the U.S. government and ask for help. In foreign relations, we have never learned that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The U.S. has waded its feet on the South China Sea conflict because it gives them the reason to re-establish their hegemony in the region, and we are aiding and abetting the Americans to achieve their goal against our patrimony and national interest.

Seeking a compromise in the Spratlys

During the Q&A at a forum on the Spratlys dispute in Toronto recently, a Filipino diplomat and former Consul General of the Philippine consulate in Toronto brought up the idea of a “sharing agreement” between the competing states as a possible solution to the current impasse in the South China Sea. Stressing that such agreement was within the realm of possibility, the diplomat referred to the example of the Ruhr Agreement which was adopted after the end of the Second World War in order to control the coal and steel industry in the Ruhr Area in West Germany.

The diplomat, however, failed to mention that the agreement was reached by the Allied powers as a condition for permitting the West Germans in establishing the Federal Republic of Germany. The agreement was signed by the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Benelux countries.

Sculpture depicting hard life of coal miners in the Ruhr valley.
Photo  courtesy of silwittmann.

At the time, France was seriously concerned with keeping Germany weak and restricting its civilian industries of military potential. France wanted to place the coal-rich Ruhr area and the Rhineland under French control, or at a minimum, to internationalize them, that is, to subject the German coal and steel industry to an international authority led by the Allied powers.

The Ruhr valley became the centre of the German economic miracle of the 1950s and 1960s because of the heavy demand for coal and steel. After 1973, however, Germany suffered from the global economic crisis with its soaring oil prices and persistent high unemployment, and the Ruhr region was the hardest hit. German coal became no longer competitive and the Ruhr steel industry went into sharp decline. The coal mines and hot metal furnaces that transformed the region into Europe's industrial engine a century ago have long since shut down, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I was struck by the diplomat’s comparison of the current stalemate in the Spratlys with a totally different Germany after it was defeated by the Allies during the Second World War. Finding no possible connection between the two, the diplomat perhaps was simply being tactful in offering a negotiated solution to the problem. In any case, his notion of a “shared agreement” is just right in the neighbourhood of possible options for settling the Spratlys dispute.

The complexities of overlapping claims and the Spratlys dispute’s long history are making the determination of the sovereignty question extremely difficult. Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows states to choose whatever means they wish to resolve their disputes, China and Vietnam appear not interested in bringing up the dispute to arbitration, presumably for fear of an unfavourable outcome to their claims. This led one observer to describe the current situation in the Spratlys as one of “leaking status quo” or an unstable “do nothing” approach.

But the current impasse is not desirable for all the competing states. By steadfastly insisting on their territorial sovereignty claims, claimant states are holding up the enormous potential that could be derived from exploration and exploitation of the natural wealth of Spratlys and its seabed and waters around it.

That is why the Timor Sea Treaty, which was the most recent example of a joint collaboration between two competing sovereignty claims over the resources of a continental shelf, is the closest model of conflict resolution that comes to mind.

The joint petroleum exploration of the Timor Sea by Australia and East Timor allows both countries to benefit from the resources of their continental shelf without determining issues of sovereignty and maritime boundaries. Both countries are bound by their treaty to refrain from asserting their claims to rights, jurisdiction or maritime boundaries, in relation to the other, for 50 years. That is a long time, and who knows after all the oil is gone, if either country would still be interested in pursuing their sovereignty claim.

Sunset at Timor Sea. Photo courtesy of Pepiloo.

A proposal was already made to establish a Spratly Resource Development Authority which could probably ease the pressures of conflicting sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. Such a cooperative arrangement could pool the financial resources of all the claimants into a joint effort to develop the area’s natural resources within a politically stable and demilitarized environment. There will be no more war of words or stoking fears that China might use its military power to impose itself on the region. Allies of the United States would also stop abetting and encouraging the U.S. government to keep its military presence in the South China Sea to counterbalance the threat of China’s rising hegemony.

In other words, the Spratlys situation should be turned into an opportunity for unity among the claimant states, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a whole—instead of division, threats of military confrontation, or the emergence of a new cold war.

So, the diplomat who said that a “shared agreement” like that of the Ruhr Valley could be right after all, although that arrangement was conceived for an entirely different purpose and under contrasting circumstances.

Compromise, as U.S. President Obama has asked his opponents in Congress to consider in trying to reach a middle ground on their policy differences, has surprisingly become the new buzzword in American politics, although it is as old as the U.S. Congress itself. Perhaps, it is also about time that each claimant state in the South China Sea consider making a compromise for the benefit of the region as a whole.

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.