1

CHAPTER 1: SYNOPSIS OF THE ISSUES IN THE WEST

PHILIPPINE SEA
The dispute has its roots in the early twentieth century when Chinese authorities began to assert Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. This triggered protest by the Vietnamese court at Hue, which had established its control over the islands well before the French conquests of Vietnam. In the 1930s, while China began to publish maps declaring its territorial claims in the South China Sea, French authorities in Indochina also began to set up weather stations on and send garrisons to the Paracel and Spratly Islands. The dispute gained prominence in 1978, when the Philippines set out its EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), formally including the island Kalayaan in the Spratlys. An EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) beyond a coastal states 12-mile territorial sea, and grants sovereign rights over the natural resources and exploitation in the zone, while preserving the freedom of navigation. Several coastal states had claimed EEZs since the 1940s, but it was not until 1982 that the third UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) codified the EEZ. The Philippines made their first claim in the area, which they refer to as the Kalayaan islands in 1975 and has been developing oil in the region between the Spratlys and the island of Palawan since 1976. The Philippines real history in the region began in May 1956 when a private Philippine expedition surveyed and occupied some of the islands. The Philippines were a trusteeship of the Allied powers at the time and the guarantee of Allied protection kept the Philippines from garrisoning troops on its islands. However, as that guarantee weakened the Philippines decided to beef up its defense. In 1976, it set up a garrison on Palawan and in 1978 it established more soldiers on seven of the islands. There are currently about 1,000 Marines stationed on the islands. In1979, the Philippines stated that it only wanted control of the seven islands under its control and administration and not the rest of the archipelago. Malaysia has been involved in the dispute since 1979. It currently has control over three of the islands but claims the whole chain. Malaysias case is based on the fact that the islands are part of its continental shelf. This gives it right to the islands under the Law of the Sea Convention. Brunei's claims to the island also rest on the Law of the Sea. It states that the southern part of the Spratly chain is actually a part of its continental shelf and therefore its territory and resources.

Taiwan has maintained a garrison on the biggest of the islands since 1956. Its claims to the island are based on its assertion that Taiwan and its Kuomintang government are the true China. Both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China say that the islands were discovered by Chinese navigators, used by Chinese fishermen for centuries, and under the administration of China since the 15th century. Further, the Kuomintang sent a naval expedition to the islands and took formal possession in 1946. It left a garrison on the largest island of Itu Aba. However, since Taiwan claims to be the true China, it believes the islands belong to it and not to the PRC. Its main concern is that China alone or China and Vietnam will gain control and thus, have a monopoly on the South China Sea. China and Vietnam are the main protagonists in the dispute. Vietnam claims to the islands, which they call the Truong SA islands, are part of the empire of Annam, Vietnam's ancestor, in the l9th century. In 1815, an expedition sent by king Gia Long to chart sea lanes occupied and settled the islands. The French, who were Vietnamws colonial rulers, annexed the Spratlys in 1933, so Vietnam says the islands are theirs as the inheritors of the French possessions. In September 1973, Vietnam declared that the Spratlys were part of the Phuoc Tuy province. It has since stated that the Philippines are occupying part of its territory. Vietnam currently holds three islands. China's claims to the island are based on the same history as Taiwan's claim. The PRC government maintains that it is the legitimate Chinese government and that, therefore, the islands, which they call the Nansha islands--are their territory. They have been the most belligerent in pursuing their claim. The dispute between China and Vietnam picked up in 1988. Chinese naval vessels sailed into the Spratlys in January 1988 and Chinese marines started building defenses on one of the largest Islands--the first time China has settled soldiers on the islands. In March, fighting broke out between Vietnam and China and China sunk two Vietnamese ships. While they have moved to more political means of dealing with the dispute, tensions remain high in the area. Confrontation surfaced again when China contracted with a US firm to begin testing for oil sights, even though the territorial issue remains far from solved. Occasional harassment of fishermen by all sides continues as well. Each of the six countries maintains its claim to all the islands. The protagonists have been discussing the possibility of shelving the sovereignty issue to undertake joint development of its resources and have sent a joint scientific team to run tests on resource potential. The dispute has not been taken to any official forum as of this date. 2

Indonesia tried to start talks among the disputants. Jakarta believed that as a non-involved Asian country, it could be an impartial mediator. No decisions on sovereignty were reached at the meetings but the disputants did agree to send a scientific team to the islands to assess their resource potential and the environmental condition. So far no measures have been instituted but the territorial dispute has proven to be the most effective ban because it has prevented Exploitation of the oil and natural resources completely. The Law of the Sea Convention, an international law/standard agreed to by the countries of the world, is involved in the claims of Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines. These three countries claim that all or parts of the islands are a part of their continental shelf. According to the Law of the Sea, the countries have legal right over the area of their continental shelf. In 1987 China claimed that the Hainan Island, the closest recognized Chinese territory to the islands was a separate province that would be developed as a special economic zone and declared a new law on its territorial waters in 1992. These laws gave China a greater basis for claiming control over the Spratlys as a "contiguous zones" for territory.1 Today, military forces from Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines occupy about 45 of the islands. Brunei has claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone in the southeastern part of the region without maintaining a military presence. The dispute is inevitably linked to Chinas rise and its military ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region. In recent years, the Chinese navy has intensified its patrols throughout the area and has shown an increasing readiness and willingness to confront other nations for control within the contested island chains. The essential problem is simple: the claimants disagree about the distribution of the Spratly Islands. While Beijing has repeatedly stated that China owns sovereignty and jurisdiction over the island and adjacent waters, other nations involved in the dispute contradict this claim, basing their responses on historical or legal arguments. On May 2009 that China issued an official note concerning the ninedash line, formally bringing the nine-dash line map to global attention. Beijings declaration of the international significance of this line was a response to Malaysia and Vietnams joint submission to the United Nations that manifests their own claims in the South China Sea. In early 2010, Chinese officials appeared to have considered the idea of elevating Chinas claims in the South China Sea to a core national 3

interest, which would put it on par with Tibet and Taiwan. Beijing has never publicly confirmed this. Neither, however, has it made a formal denial despite the apprehension aroused in the region. In April 2011, the Philippines filed a formal protest in the United Nations over Chinas ninedash line. According to the contested map, the Chinese-claimed waters include several oil, natural gas, and condensate fields of the Philippines (Malampaya and Camago), Malaysia (fields offshore Sarawak), Indonesia (Natuna Islands) and Vietnam (several blocks off the Vietnamese coast). In April 2011, Chinese President Hu Jintao called on other Asian nations to forge better cooperation regarding security matters involving territorial claims over the Spratly Islands to avoid disagreements. The Taiwanese government echoed this statement with similar remarks. Foreign Ministry spokesperson James Chang said all the countries involved should first shelve their disputes and then seek to solve the issue peacefully. The idea of a cooperative approach to resolving the territorial dispute is not new and has been floating for some two decades. Including all Southeast Asian states with the exception of Timor Leste, ASEAN has been at the forefront of diplomatic initiatives to approach the dispute from a multilateral angle. The ASEAN DOC (Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea) of 1992, signed by China in 2002, is often praised as a first step toward a peaceful settlement. On paper, the DOC commits the signatories to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means and in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including UNCLOS. Although the DOC is not binding and dependent upon the goodwill of signatory states, government officials and scholarly observers alike hope that the agreement will nevertheless oblige the Southeast Asian claimants and China to avoid any activity that would damage or complicate their relations. In an optimistic scenario, the declaration constructively contributes to the avoidance of armed clashes among the parties over their conflicting claims on the sovereignty of the Spratly Islands. China has succeeded in prohibiting bilateral discussions with the other claimants. However, the dynamics of China-ASEAN interactions changed, when in 2010 the US administration declared for the first time an interest in the dispute and took up the side of the ASEAN. In July, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi attended the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), which is a securityfocused dialogue mechanism of 27 member states. China allegedly exerted pressure to try to keep the South China Sea off the agenda, but Clinton addressed the matter at the urging of the host Vietnam and other ASEAN members. She declared the United States national interest in seeing a resolution of the rival claims and its support for a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the 4

various territorial disputes without coercion. Beijing was outraged by Clintons remarks as it is strategically opposed to a collaborative settlement with ASEAN members. Yang went so far as to call Clinton's remarks an attack on China. In January 2011, US State Department Assistant Secretary for Asia and Pacific Affairs Kurt M. Campbell confirmed the United States strategic interest in the South China Sea and also reemphasised the key role of ASEAN in resolving the dispute. The Obama Administration also clarified that, while it was not taking sides on the claims to sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, it did have concerns about claims to territorial waters or any maritime zones that were not consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention. 2

CHAPTER 2: ISSUES ON SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL

INTEGRITY
In July 2011, Philippine President Benigo Aquino III made it clear in a speech that the Spratly Islands belong to the Philippines based on international law pertaining to rights given to archipelago nations and continental shelf extensions, especially in regards to the Spratly Islands. The Philippines refer to the area as the West Philippine Sea. The most pressing territorial dispute for the Philippines is with China over rival claims to parts of the South China Sea, home to some of the worlds most important shipping lanes and believed to hold vast deposits of fossil fuels. The Philippines and Vietnam, which also claims parts of the South China Sea, complained repeatedly last year of what they said were increasingly aggressive acts by China in the decadeslong rift. The alleged acts, which included a Chinese naval ship reportedly firing warning shots at Filipino fishermen, fuelled fears among some nations in the region about China as its military and political strength grows The Philippines announced plans on Friday to allow a greater US military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising China.3

1. Advantages of U.S military presence in the Philippines

It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximize our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial, this is what Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said in a statement. He said that a greater US military presence in the Philippines would help bolster regional security and such cooperative efforts would as well result in achieving a balance of influence to ensure peace, stability, and economic development in the region. Del Rosario also added that the increased US military presence could include planning more joint exercises to promote interoperability and a rotating and more frequent presence by them. Aside from regular military exercises, the most notable US presence in the Philippines in recent times has been a rotating force of about 600 troops that has been stationed in the southern Philippines for the past decade. The US forces special train local troops in how to combat militants, but are not allowed to have a fighting role. One Political analyst in Manila said the Philippines decision to allow a bigger US military presence was a direct reaction to Chinas perceived increased aggressiveness, particularly regarding the South China Sea. The Philippines is playing the US card to get more leverage against China. The Philippine Air Force (PAF), the youngest of the three major commands of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is not capable of defending the country with its almost nil or zero conventional capability, this was the statement of our Commission on Audit (CoA). If there could really be possibility of threats to our national interest, as Chinas military have been harassing our patrol men in our territorial land, we have the U.S military aid in our side if they will attack us which is not impossible as we are not as big as China.

2. Disadvantages of U.S military presence in the Philippines

The US has always regarded the Philippines as a strategic base in various respects and considers our islands as practically an unsinkable US naval fleet. The Philippines' decision 16 years ago to close down a US military base made history and marked a significant victory for anti-base campaigners. But backdoor deals have delivered the largest ever US military presence. Philippines illustrate the latest strategy of US imperialism to create agile, flexible forces to maintain dominance. Sixteen years ago, the Philippine Senate made the historic vote to shut down what American analysts once described as probably the most important basing complex in the world -- the US military bases in Subic

and Clark, along with other smaller support and communications facilities in the country. Taken after long and emotional debates, the Senate vote shook the Philippines relations with its most important ally. That one small and weak country could say no to what by then had become the worlds only remaining superpower reverberated across the world.4 We can expect more US military intervention in the Philippines. It has used for sometime the CIA-created Abu Sayyaf as the pretext for introducing military forces via Balikatan/VFA not only in Mindanao but also in the entire country, for meddling in the negotiations between the Manila government and the MILF and for seeking to grab oil and other major natural resources from Moroland. It is also using the issue of the Spratlys in order to beef up its military forces in the Philippines. But the Philippines cannot be too sure about US support because the US has far greater economic and security interests in its relations with China. Its true that the United States wants to expand its presence in the region, which is why they will put up a base in Australia and station ships in Singapore. But in the Philippines, it involves exercises that will still be in accordance with our Visiting Forces Agreement. The US wants to expand its military presence in the Southeast Asian region to counter the growing military strength of China which it considers a big threat. The expansion of US military presence in the Philippines is key to achieving these geopolitical goals, The US wants to increase its economic, political and military domination of the region and is decided on using the Philippines for the purpose. And if we do not think again and accept their aid in what we allege of Chinas attack to the Philippines, which is of course their front reason to be able to enter again the Philippine territory, then we cant deny the fact that history will repeat itself. It is a sad fact that the US controls the Philippines economically, politically, culturally and militarily. The Philippines remains a semi colonial and semi feudal country because of the continuing infringement of our national sovereignty and prevention of economic development by the US. Indeed, the US wants to maintain a feudal or more precisely a semi feudal mode of production in the Philippines in order to make it a political underling and an easy source of super profits for the US monopoly banks and firms. Further, the move sends a very dangerous signal that could cause China to misjudge the US intentions, and raise suspicions between the two countries. Instead of maintaining diplomatic way of solving the issue, this will lead to heighten the tension between the two countries. Lets just presume that the U.S military forces in our country is an advantageous to our territorial integrity and sovereignty, however on the part of China, they view this as an alliance to overthrow them or they see this as an alliance as a join forces to fight them in their

territorial claim. China, on the other hand, will strengthen his military forces to heir territorial claim, and prepare its people to war and this is the last thing that Philippines and other ASEAN countries want--To push the giant country to raise in its military power. Obviously, Philippine is just an insect compared to China in terms of everything. With power, money, weapon and others, China can easily swallow us like a lost fish. And this is what were trying to avoid having war because we will be all dead in the sense of government. The U.S military aid is besides us not because theyre with us but because of their goal for expansionism in the region. Philippines will be left for nothing and what will happen to our fight for territorial integrity will be turn to ashes. We should condemn the move of P-noy in allowing U.S military presence in the Philippine because these instruments violate national sovereignty, allow the US military forces to intervene in the Philippines and protect US interests against the interests of the Filipino people. We must condemn and change a government that acts as a puppet and servant of US imperialism. We must engage in all possible and necessary forms of struggle in order to achieve national liberation and democracy and establish a peoples democratic government that can act best to resist the impositions of imperialism.5

CHAPTER 3: Critiques in the military power of P-noy The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national plicy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of thae land and adheres to the policy of peace, equity, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. --- Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution. Our Constitution grants the Executive the military Power to meet emergency situation. It mentions three extraordinary remedies or measures which the President is empowered to utilize in meeting emergency situations. They are the power to call the armed forces; the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and to declare martial law. When the President accepted the U.S military presence here in the Philippines regarding the dispute in the West Philippines sea territory, he puts the Philippines in a dangerous situation. First and foremost, the ASEAN countries are trying to do their best to

solve the territorial dispute in a diplomatic manner. And here is the Philippine calling the aid of the U.S arm forces for military assistance to the Philippines. It is true that China is strengthening his weapon and military forces in its territory in the West Philippine Sea and this is natural move to a country to protect his own territory. What should the President do is to protect also his claim. As the military power is vested upon him, he can call out the armed forces, to protect also our territorial claim in the West Philippine Sea. He must give priority in strengthening military forces in the territory. The Presidents moved in seeking the U.S military forces here in the Philippines for assistance in case a war broke out between Philippines and China is out of order within his military power. Our Constitution renounces war as an instrument of national policy except if it is a defensive war. However, what the President is doing in seeking the aid of the U.S military forces in the Philippines is an implied aggressive war against China. The mere presence of the U.S forces here in the Philippines is challenging and pushing China to rise in war whether China is contemplating war or not because the U.S military presence in the Philippines imposes threat to the territorial claim of China in the West Philippine Sea. Lets go back again to our present situation with China, is there an attack from China? None, what happened to the allegedly attacks of Chinese military to our patrolmen in our territorial claim in the West Philippine See is not an attack because they didnt harm or do anything violent to them; is there an invasion by China? None. So basically, it is the Philippines contemplating a war by calling and letting the U.S military presence in our country. To be prepared in any aspect, like strengthening military forces and weapons in this critical situation is the best move of the Philippines, however, to let military to intervene for allowing their military forces in our country is not a good solution to our lack of power to fight China in case China will rise against us. What the Philippine government only can do is to deal the problem through diplomacy and wait rather than to have the U.S military in our country, which is the real bully between the two giant countries. We must admit that theres nothing we can do except to deal with it through peaceful manner because if we resort to other way like considering the possibility of China to attack us, it will be to our disadvantages, we will be the loser at the end and whatever happens, either China or United States, we will become their pawn.

10

1EFERENCES
1

www1.american.edu/ted/SPRATLY.htm

hir.harvard.edu/the-spratly-islands-dispute-order-building-onchina
2 3

Saturday, January 28, 2012: Daily Times http://www.washingtonpost.com http://www.josemariasison.org (http://s.tt/150Od)

4 5

1 2 3 4 5