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.

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.

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.

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.

The Spratlys: Crisis in the high seas

It is relatively easy for any government, like the Philippines or China, to claim territorial sovereignty over an island or group of islands such as the Spratly Archipelago in the South China Sea. What complicates this claim is the uncertainty as to how many islands, cays, reefs and atolls are actually present since many remain submerged at high tide, thus making it more difficult even to confirm their presence or exact locations.

Map of Spratly Islands. Photo courtesy of Centre for International Development.

But no matter, several countries have staked out their claims on this group of islands in South China Sea, notably among them, the Spratlys, now the most hotly contested offshore seabed resource in the region. Those who have claimed sovereignty over Spratlys are Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)

Spratlys is at the centre of the world’s busiest sea lanes in the region and widely presumed to be rich with oil and other mineral resources such as hydrocarbons underneath and around the islands. The various claims stem largely from jurisdictional rights as set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).

But the UNCLOS is not fully determinative because there are conflicting claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys. Under UNCLOS, the country that holds valid legal title to sovereignty over their islands has 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).

Sovereignty issue

One must understand that even if Spratlys is within the Philippines’ EEZ from its coastline, it is not enough to acquire jurisdictional rights. It must first satisfy the sovereignty conundrum.

Does the Philippines or any of the other claimant states have legal title to sovereignty to Spratlys? This is the crux of the problem. At the core of Spratlys dispute is the question of territorial sovereignty, not law-of the sea issues. If the issue of sovereignty can be resolved, then the maritime jurisdictional principles codified under UNCLOS can be applied to the Spratlys.

At present, no claimant government has yet established sufficiently substantial legal grounds to validate its claim over Spratlys. China, the wealthiest and with the most military clout in the region, has been traditionally opposed to multilateral negotiations with its rival claimant countries, primarily because its sovereignty over the islands is held as non-negotiable, although it has been willing to negotiate joint ventures for exploiting natural resources in the area bilaterally.

Obviously, China’s position is self-serving since it can be outvoted by the other countries in the dispute if the issue of sovereignty is put on the table, thus putting the situation in a stalemate. The possibility of resorting to military action by the rival states to defend their claims has already started, albeit on limited scale, but could potentially exacerbate an already protracted problem.

The countries more assertive of their claims over Spratlys are China, the Philippines and Vietnam. Their respective claims are based on acts of discovery, occupation and more recently, by way of the UNCLOS, on certain inferred rights over continental shelf delimitation. When the prospects for petroleum exploration became real during the 1970s, the 1982 UNCLOS appeared as the standard for demarcating offshore jurisdictional limits for resource exploitation.

China’s historical justification

China’s claim of territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea rest on historical claims of discovery and occupation that went back to references to the 12th and 18th centuries during the Sung Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, respectively. There are, however, problems of authenticity and accuracy in describing references for the Spratly Islands. The China case is further compounded by the fundamental question of whether proof of historical title today carries much legal weight to validate acquisition of territory.

Chinese map of Spratly Islands. Photo courtesy of Joe Jones.

The Philippine claim: Discovery and occupation

The Philippines justifies its claim to the Spratlys on discovery and occupation by Tomas Cloma, an enterprising Filipino businessman and owner of a fishing fleet and a private maritime training institute. Cloma aspired to build a cannery and develop guano deposits in the Spratlys. Until World War II when there was no mention yet of potential mineral deposits in the Spratly Islands, the Chinese considered the islands in the South China Sea as having no precious value to them and were only worth their weight in guano.

In 1947, Cloma established a settlement on eight islands of the Spratly Archipelago. He declared himself protector of the islands in 1956 and named them Kalayaan Islands (Freedomland). Then, Cloma deeded the Kalayaan Islands to the Philippines in 1974, after which President Ferdinand Marcos formally declared Kalayaan Islands as part of the Philippines and placed them under the administration of Palawan province. Quite interestingly, the official Philippine position asserts that the Kalayaan Islands group are separate and distinct from the Spratlys and Paracels. This claim is based on a geological assertion that the continental shelf of the Kalayaan Islands group is juxtaposed to the Palawan province and extends some 300 miles westward, into the heart of the Philippines’ EEZ.

Vietnam: History and continental shelf principle

Vietnam’s claims are based on a combination of historical data and the continental shelf principle. According to Vietnamese court documents during the reign of King Le Thanh Tong in the 15th century, the Vietnamese claimed sovereignty over the Spratly Islands. This claim was well documented during the 17th century when Vietnamese maps incorporated the Spratly archipelago into Vietnam. In 1884, the French established a protectorate over Vietnam and asserted their colonial claim to the Spratly and Paracel island groups. Ironically, the present Vietnamese government continues to use these historical claims to justify their sovereignty in the South China Sea.

Under modern international law, the mere discovery of some territory does not sufficiently vest to the discoverer valid title of ownership. Discovery only creates an inchoate title, which must be perfected by subsequent continuous and effective acts of occupation and settlement.

Evidence of permanent settlement is not compelling in the case of China’s claim to the Spratlys. There are considerable doubts as to the authenticity and accuracy of the Chinese historical records. This is why international law usually regards mere historical claims, without evident occupation and permanent settlement, as only as arguably binding and open to legal challenge in order to establish a valid claim over territory in the oceans.

Interestingly, Article 121 of the UNCLOS states that “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive zone or continental shelf.” This particular provision has been used by the claimant countries to justify attempts to build structures on submerged rocks and reefs in order to establish a new EEZ in the region. But if two countries establish structures in close proximity, then an overlapping EEZ could emerge, thus creating potential overlapping claims which may not be resolved under the law of the seas.

Spratlys a vortex of competing claims

In short, the Spratlys situation remains complicated by competing claims and the possibility of military confrontation. China, in the foreseeable future, will remain dominant throughout the South China Sea because it has the economic wherewithal, the technology and the military might to assert itself either through naval force or diplomacy. An expansionist China is being compelled by a need to support greater demands for more goods and services from its burgeoning population of close to 2 billion people, and China has already demonstrated its willingness to use military force, if necessary, to protect and support that expansion.

David vs. Goliath and R.P.-U.S. Mutual defence pact

However, the other claimant states in the South China Sea dispute will not give up easily their sovereignty claims. Fuelled by nationalistic motivations, each country perceives its sovereignty as exclusive and sacred. The history between China and Vietnam in the South China Sea has been antagonistic. Now, the Philippines, in a kind of mismatch between David and Goliath, has entered the fray and been making overtures to the United States for possible military assistance should confrontation with China become imminent.

Filipino-Canadians hold picket at the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to protest China's
 initiative to take control of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, July 8, 2011.
Please click the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgPcunivDXg
  to view Loida Nicolas Lewis, Chair of the U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance
(USP4GG) speak against China's "intrusion" in Philippine waters.

The Philippines is relying on its mutual defence treaty with the U.S. that commits American military action to defend governments within the treaty area, including the South China Sea. But the mutual defence pact between the two countries has been suspect for a long time, and whether the U.S. is under obligation to come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of an armed attack is highly dubious. Besides, if there is an armed attack against the Philippines, it should be first reported to the United Nations Security Council of which China is a permanent member. Thus, multilateral diplomacy has to be exhausted before resorting to use of reasonable force.

China to U.S.: Stay out

Will the United States take the risk of alienating and angering its principal trading partner and creditor? Again, that is very unlikely. China has already warned the U.S. to stay out of the South China Sea conflict.

But Filipino-Americans in the United States and other Filipinos in the diaspora, including in Canada, are being urged to picket Chinese consulates around the world to protest China’s apparent power grab in the South China Sea. This is fine if the purpose is to push China to accept multilateral talks among the South China Sea disputants, but not to further inflame the conflict with nationalistic claims that will not result in lasting solutions. Statements such as “China’s intrusion in Philippine waters” or “Spratlys are worth dying for,” especially coming from Filipino émigrés, are vacuous and empty. Here comes again the opportunity for Filipinos who did well abroad to make light of the real economic and poverty issues that confront their countrymen in the Philippines, by focusing on an issue that hardly matters to the average Filipino.

Not that sovereignty or our national patrimony is not an important matter, but this issue has always been sidestepped by our own leaders in government when it comes to foreign investments.

The Malampaya “10 per cent” lesson

Take the case of the Malampaya project in offshore Palawan. Former President Gloria Arroyo ignored and violated the Philippine Constitution by allowing Shell and Texaco to get a 90 per cent stake in the entire project, divided equally between them, and leaving the remainder, or 10 per cent, to the Philippine National Oil Corporation (PNOC).

Or the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) signed between China, Vietnam and the Philippines in 2005? This is another clear example of a violation of the Philippine Constitution which might have been signed in exchange for bribe-tainted loans, prompting a Philippine newspaper columnist to write: “It isn’t that we sold potentially oil rich shores so cheaply, but we have bartered our souls.”

How about the current Aquino government reclaiming back our constitutional right to our natural resources, instead of making idle overtures on Spratlys over which all we have is a disputable claim to territorial sovereignty?

Waging a proxy war for the U.S.

Something smells fishy in the sudden interest of the present Philippine government and their followers abroad such as U.S. Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) to engage China in the Spratlys dispute. In inviting the United States to join the fray, it looks very obvious that this is turning to be a U.S. proxy war with China on Philippine battleground.

Filipino-Canadians picket the Chinese Consulate in Toronto, July 8, 2011.

But not everything is lost yet over Spratlys. There are precedents of resource development arrangements that have been successfully negotiated in the past which could serve as models for managing resource development in the South China Sea. These arrangements also mirror the problems faced in Spratlys, issues such as disputed sovereignty, maritime jurisdiction, geostatic considerations, and access to natural resources.

Precedents worth considering

Precedents like the Australia–Indonesia Timor Gap Agreement, the Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty) Arrangement Svalbard for the cluster of glaciated islands in the Arctic Ocean, and the Antarctic Treaty, can provide insights and salient lessons for negotiating an arrangement that could resolve, if not at least mitigate the disputed sovereignty situation in South China Sea.

These arrangements from the past demonstrate that international agreements are possible and resource development schemes can be created—if the parties are willing to make them happen. However, no agreement would be possible absent the political will to enter into compromises. China must accept multilateral negotiations, bearing in mind that there is more than one or two disputants in the South China Sea.

Posturing from the Philippines will not help either, especially if it would only draw the United States in a proxy war with China. The mutual defence pact between the Philippines and the U.S. has outlived its usefulness, assuming it was in the past. The United States probably needs the sea lanes and the airspace in the South China Sea for its naval force to manoeuvre in protecting Japan and South Korea—two countries which should also play an active role in resolving the Spratlys dispute.