South China Sea | Prepys' Homepage

No Hitler-calling vs China; no jetskiing to the Spratlys

July 4, 2016July 4, 2016 Ellen

President Duterte greets Chinese ambassador Zhao Jianhua in a reception of the Diplomatic Corps during the inaugural ceremony on June 30,2016

Change has come.

The sober position that the Duterte administration is taking in connection with the impending decision of the United Nations Arbitral Court on the case filed by the Philippines against China is a reversal of the “Shame China” strategy that the Aquino administration undertook.

It is also a departure from cinematic solution that then candidate Rodrigo Duterte regaled his supporters during campaign rallies:
“I will ask the Navy to bring me to the nearest point in South China Sea that is tolerable to them and I will ride a jet ski. I’ll carry a flag and when I reach Spratlys, I will erect the Filipino flag. I will tell them, suntukan o barilan.”

Now carrying the mantle of the presidency, Duterte was a voice of moderation during the cabinet discussion aired live on TV on how they would handle the July 12 U.N. Court decision.

He described it as “cliffhanger” or full of suspense.

Apparently briefed on the good chances of the Philippines and China’s position that it will not recognize the U.N. court decision, Duterte said while “ it would be a moral victory” he doesn’t want to put the country “in an awkward position.”

“As for me, I do not want it (violence). God knows, I really do not want any fighting with anybody. If we can have peace by just talking, I will be really very happy,” he said.

He set the guideline: “We don’t really taunt or flaunt it.”

Dutere is showing better understanding of the Chinese than his predecessor, who even compared China’s action in South China Sea to Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia before the outbreak of World War II.

Betraying ignorance of Chinese culture, former President Aquino and his foreign secretary Albert del Rosario made up for the country’s weak military position with strong, sometimes inflammatory, statements against China to generate domestic and international support.

“Words are our only weapon,” said one diplomat noting that the Chinese is particular about “not losing face.”

Del Rosario accused the then Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing of engaging in “duplicity” during the initial negotiations on the arrest of Chinese fishermen in Scarborough Shoal on April 10, 2012.

Aquino and Del Rosario’s strategy, however, backfired because China took a more aggressive position sending more vessels, as many as 90, to Scarborough shoal overwhelming the Philippines’ three vessels during a three-month standoff.

Philippine government ships have withdrawn from the shoal, 124 nautical miles from the north western province of Zambales, leaving China in control of the area with its three ships permanently stationed there.

This prompted the Philippines to go to the U.N. Arbitral Court in January 2013.

In its complaint the Philippines asked the U.N. court to declare as illegal China’s all-encompassing nine-dash line map.

It also asked the U.N. court to declare as part of Philippine 350 nautical mile continental shelf low tide elevations (rocks or shoals that are seen only during low tide) where China has built permanent structures.

It further asked the Court to declare that the waters outside the 12 nautical miles surrounding the Panatag Island (Scarborough shoal) should be declared as part of the Philippines 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

China’s response to the Philippine’s U.N. suit was massive reclamations in the Spratlys in South China Sea, being contested by, aside from China and the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan, turning rocks into artificial islands that now host military installations including airports.

In the past four years, Filipino fishermen have been prevented from going to Scarborough shoal, their traditional fishing ground, by the Chinese ships. After the election of Duterte last May 9, however, Filipino fishermen have been allowed access to the shoal. This was seen as China’s goodwill gesture to Duterte, who has said he will engage in a bilateral talk with China, another departure from Aquino’s insistence of multilateral talks only with China.

Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay, Jr.. reported during the cabinet meeting that there are other foreign governments- those concerned about freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, who urging the Philippines to make stronger statements against China. It is known that the United States together with Japan put prime importance on freedom of navigation in the South China Sea where some $5.3 trillion worth of trade pass yearly.

But he said, “I am averse to that idea and I told them in no unmistakable terms.”

Yasay asked the question that is asked in all forums on South China Sea: “What will happen if the decision is in our favor, meaning that the arbitral tribunal will make a declaration about the legality of the nine-dash-line, and will say that this is part of our economic shoal, including Scarborough Shoal. What if, in the face of these circumstances, China will dig in and put us to a test? They will dislodge fisherman again from fishing in Scarborough Shoal.”

Duterte’s position of “We will study progressively” shows he has grasped the intricacies of foreign relations and knows it takes much more than a legal victory for a real win for the Filipino people.

PH authorities knew of Subi Reef lighthouse construction 5 years ago

April 8, 2016April 8, 2016 Ellen

Lighthouse on Subi Reef in South China Sea is not in use. Photo by Xing Guangli. Xinhua

China has started the operations of a lighthouse in Subi Reef, The Chinese news agency Xinhua reported Tuesday.

Xinhua said the 55-meter high lighthouse contains technology to monitor passing ships.

The Philippines should be very concerned.

Subi Reef is the nearest China- occupied feature in the disputed Spratlys to the Philippine-occupied Pag-asa island. Only 12 nautical miles of the sea separate the two features claimed not only by China and the Philippines but also Vietnam.

Subi is Zamora Reef to the Philippines, Zhǔbì Jiāo to China and đá Xu Bi to Vietnam. Pag-asa is also known as Thitu, Zhōngyè Dǎo to China and Đảo Thị Tứ to Vietnam.

As warned by Magdalo Rep. Ashley Acedillo in May last year, the reclamations and construction of military facilities in Subi Reef and Mischief Reef are intended to choke off access to Ayungin shoal, where the Philippines maintains a military outpost in a rusty WWII warship beached there, the BRP Sierra Madre.

It was also near Subi Reef where the U.S. guided missile destroyer the USS Lassen sailed within 12 nautical miles October last year in its Freedom of Navigation assertion.

The lighthouse in Subi Reef is China’s third in Spratlys. The two others are in Huayang (Calderon Reef ) Reef and Chigua (Johnson South)Reef.

The Aquino government, which expects the decision of the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal on its case filed versus China on the latter’s nine-dashed line map, has not been reported to have filed a protest on China’s Subi Reef lighthouse.

It’s disturbing and infuriating. Philippine authorities knew about the construction of the lighthouse in Subi Reef as early as far back as 2010.

Here’s a report by VERA Files’ Tessa Jamandre titled “China builds lighthouse on PHL-claimed territory in Spratlys”:

“China has constructed a lighthouse on Subi Reef in the disputed areas in the South China Sea which Chinese troops are occupying but is being claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam.

“Aerial shots taken in October by the Philippine Air Force on routine reconnaissance flights show the 20-by-20-meter structure complemented by parabolic antennas and domes on the reef, which the Philippine government calls “Zamora” and lies only 26 kilometers southwest of Pag-asa that is part of Kalayaan town.

“The lighthouse is intended to expand and fortify China’s claim over the hotly contested Spratly group of islands, experts said.
“Under international law, a lighthouse is a recognized base point from where a state can measure its maritime regimes, including territorial sea (12 nautical miles from the baseline), contiguous zone (24 nm), economic exclusive zone (200 nm), continental shelf (200 nm) and extended continental shelf (350nm).

“Malacañang and the Department of Foreign Affairs declined to comment on the information when asked for their reaction. An official, who asked not to be named, said they would like to see first the published article.

““I think that should be resisted. That really goes against all understandings,” said former ambassador to Japan Domingo Siazon who was the foreign secretary in 1995 when the Philippines strongly protested the construction by China of military-type structures on Mischief Reef, 150 miles west of Palawan and 620 miles southeast of China.”

Malacanang and the DFA remained silent and did not protest after the publication of VERA Files’ article.

Is it any wonder that China proceeded with the construction without any trouble?

China makes sure Jackson Atoll won’t be another Ayungin

March 7, 2016March 7, 2016 Ellen

Jackson Atoll, five coral islets surrounding a lagoon

The Chinese have not occupied Jackson Atoll (Philippine name is Quirino and Wufang Jiao in Chinese) in the Spratlys, as erroneously reported in Philippines media.

Not yet.

But the Chinese were there last December as related by the spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Hong Lei in his regular press briefing last March 2.

Hong said “At the end of the year 2015, a foreign vessel was grounded near Wufang Jiao of China’s Nansha islands. The owner of the vessel tried many times to tow it away but failed. He then decided to abandon the ship and dismantled and took away its main equipment. If the vessel was left aground for a long time, it might cause possible impediment to navigation safety and damage to the marine environment. Therefore, China Rescue and Salvage of Ministry of Transport recently sent salvage ships to tug the grounded vessel out of the shallow water for proper disposal. During the operation, the Chinese side advised fishing boats near the waters to stay away for navigation security and operation safety. The Chinese ships have returned after the operation.”

Although Hong only said “foreign vessel,” one news report said it was a Philippine-registered fishing vessel.

Diplomatic sources said China had to immediately remove it from Jackson Atoll as it didn’t want another “Ayungin” to happen.

It will be recalled that in 1999, the Philippine Navy “placed” the BRP Sierra Madre, in the guise of it having run aground, in Ayungin Shoal to serve as a permanent Philippine Government installation in response to China’s illegal occupation of Mischief Reef, about 50 nautical miles away, in 1995.

The BRP Sierra Madre in Ayungin Shoal is being manned by a small contingent from the Philippine Marines.

What makes the Jackson Atoll incident disconcerting is that the Chinese have come and left the coral reef, some 140 nautical miles west of Palawan, and Philippine authorities only knew about it more than two months after.

Western Command chief Vice Admiral Alexander Lopez, denying the Philippine Star report of a Chinese occupation of Jackson Atoll, said, “There is no continued or sustained presence by the Chinese there. It’s not true that they have control of Quirino Atoll. We had a flight their last Feb. 24, the Chinese are no longer there. In fact, Filipino fishermen are already there…Definitely, that’s unoccupied.”

A China rescue and salvage ship – sent to remove a fishing vessel from Jackson atoll

Jackson Atoll, a ring-shaped coral reef that has five (earning for itself the name Jackson Five) closely spaced islets on it encircling a lagoon, is being claimed by the Philippines, China and Vietnam.

Unoccupied, its location is crucial – between the Philippine-occupied Lawak (Nashan) island and China-occupied Mischief Reef (Philippine name is Panganiban. Meiji Reef to the Chinese) which has now been turned into a military base with an airfield.
Magdalo Rep. Ashley Acedillo said there is a need for the government to increase its presence in Jackson Atoll given that five years ago, China had already targeted it.

In 2011, VERA Files reported that a Chinese warship fired at Filipino fishermen in Jackson atoll.

A portion of the VERA Files report:

“’This is Chinese Warship 560. You are in the China territory. Leave the area immediately.”

“Upon hearing this warning through a marine band radio, three Philippine boats fishing in Quirino, or Jackson atoll, a Philippine-claimed islet off Palawan in the disputed Spratly Islands, scampered away.

“But the Chinese warship still fired three shots at the vessels F/V Jaime DLS, F/V Mama Lydia DLS and F/V Maricris 12. The Philippine Navy later identified the Chinese warship as Dongguan, a Jianghu-V Class missile frigate.

“The incident in the South China Sea happened on Feb. 25—before March when the Philippine-commissioned seismic vessel was reportedly harassed in Reed Bank in western Palawan and before the Chinese vessels laid steel posts and a buoy in May in the Amy Douglas (Iroquois) Bank southwest of Reed Bank which Manila said is within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone.”

In the Philippine Star report last week, fishermen complained about “gray and white Chinese ships” (Chinese Navy) preventing them from going to the Jackson Atoll lagoon which is their traditional fishing ground.

The decision on the Philippine suit against China before the United Nations Arbitral Court is expected soon.

The Chinese have always been known to be reactive: It occupied Mischief Reef in 1994 after joint development talks between China and the Philippines over gas-rich Reed Bank broke down and the Ramos administration granted an oil exploration permit to Alcorn Petroleum and Minerals.

China started the reclamation in Spratlys after the Philippines filed the suit questioning its nine-dash line map before the U.N. and the decision of the Aquino government to allow American troops to return to the Philippines.

The recent Chinese activities in Jackson Atoll should serve as alarm bells to Philippine authorities.

Water source crucial in determining status of Itu Aba (2)

February 8, 2016February 8, 2016 Ellen

Personnel measure the girth of trees on Taiping Island. Photo from Taiwan’s Foreign ministry.

(Conclusion)

The issue of whether Itu Aba (also known by its Chinese name “Taiping” and Philippine name “Ligaw”) is an island or a rock has become a battle of experts.

In the hearing at The Hague last Nov 30 on the Philippine suit against China’s nine-dash-line and constructions in submerged maritime features in the Spratlys, the American lawyer of the Philippines, Paul Reichler, presented a 1994 study which was the result of a botanical expedition funded by the Republic of China (Taiwan)’s Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan.

Reichler quoted from the study which stated: “The underground water is salty and unusable for drinking.”

Reichler said “There is no potable water. Drinkable water by itself may not be a sufficient condition to sustain human habitation, but it is certainly a necessary one. Itu Aba does not satisfy it.”

The American lawyer also said “The island is an atoll consisting of a tropical 10 reef covered with sandy coral and shell.” That is: no topsoil. … Without tillable soil, there is no agricultural production sufficient to sustain human habitation.”

Reichler concluded: “This (Itu Aba) is a rock.”

Rocks, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS, “which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

In a lecture on the South China Sea at Ateneo de Manila last year, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said if the U.N. Tribunal favors the Philippine government’s assertion that Itu Aba is not capable of human habitation or economic life of its own, “the tribunal will then declare that Palawan has a full 200 nautical mile Economic Exclusive Zone facing the West Philippine Sea.”

The implication of this is astounding. “This means,” Carpio added, “that all submerged features within this EEZ, like the Reed Bank and Malampaya, are subject to exclusive economic exploitation by the Philippines in terms of fisheries, oil and gas, and mineral resources.”

Furthermore, Carpio said, “If the Philippines has a full 200 NM EEZ in Palawan facing the West Philippine Sea, only the Philippines can create artificial islands on submerged areas or erect structures on LTEs (Low Tide Elevation) within its 200 NM EEZ. Artificial structures or reclamations made by other countries, namely by China and Vietnam, are illegal.”

What about if the U.N. Tribunal ruled Itu Aba is an island, capable of human habitation or economic life of its own?

Carpio said, then the case as far as Itu Aba and Palawan are concerned becomes an issue of overlapping EEZs (The distance between Palawan and Itu Aba is 225 NM), outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction in view of China’s reservation excluding boundary delimitation issues from compulsory arbitration.

The Philippine legal panel presented in the The Hague hearing Australian Professor Clive Schofield, an expert in maritime boundary delimitation and marine jurisdictional issues and has written a number of articles on Itu Aba.

Schofield told the tribunal: “At first glance, Itu Aba and one or two of the other partially vegetated and occupied features may appear as though they might be able to escape the net of Article 121(3). However, on closer examination, they cannot, because they lack the key requirement for full island status, namely the presence of civilian populations, the availability of potable water, and the existence of agricultural or economic activity. Not coincidentally, they are also rather small. “

Article 121 (3) is UNCLOS definition of rocks.

Schofield further said, “That is why we reached the conclusion, from a scientific and geographic perspective, and having regard for the conditions set out in Article 121(3), that Itu Aba is most appropriately treated as an Article 121(3) “rock”.

Taiwan, which occupies Itu Aba, and like China also claims almost the whole of the South China Sea (some of the features in the area are also being claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei) insists Itu Aba is an island.

Taiwan is not a participant in the The Hague hearing but recently, Yann-huei Song, a research fellow in the Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica in Taipei, wrote in Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative online site attesting that water in Itu Aba is potable.

He said he has been to Itu Aba four times. He belittled the testimony of Schofield, who, he said, has never been to Itu Aba.
Yan-Huei said “But I suspect he (Schofield) would change his opinion if he were invited to visit the island and, like me, had the chance to drink fresh water from the skimming well and eat a lunch of cooked vegetables and fruits picked from the island’s garden.”

The Philippine legal team latched on to the term “skimming well.”

Interior Minister Chen Wei-zen drinks water from the well in Itu Aba.Photo from Taiwan’s foreign ministry.

Reichler said according to the United States Department of Agriculture, the skimming well is a technique employed with an intention to extract relatively freshwater from the upper zone of the fresh-saline aquifer. “

Reichler further said: “Certainly the Taiwanese troops on Itu Aba could not survive from whatever it is that this facility produces. That is why Taiwan built two modern desalination facilities in 1993. And that constitutes further proof that there is no naturally occurring water on the feature that is suitable for drinking, much less sustaining human habitation.”

Yan-Huei’s article said:”During my four visits to Itu Aba, I have seen indigenous plants that are more than 32 feet (10 meters) tall. There is a nearly 4,000-foot (1,200-meter) runway, two piers, a guest-house building, a postal office, a small hospital, a big agricultural garden, livestock, and a temple. In addition to drinkable water that is available at the four skimming wells, indigenous soil on the island has also long been used for growing fruits, including banana, coconut, and papaya, and vegetables such as wild bitter squash, loofah, and cabbage. It should also be noted that internet and cell phone access are available on Itu Aba, along with solar power for electricity.”

All those amenities, of course, do not answer the basic question: Is Itu Aba an island or a rock?

We await the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal’s word on that.

Water source crucial in determining status of Itu Aba (1)

February 6, 2016February 6, 2016 Ellen

Itu Aba. Photo by AMTI.CSIS.org

Is the water coming from the grounds of Itu Aba (Chinese name: Taiping; Philippine name: Ligaw) suitable for drinking?
The answer to this question is crucial in determining whether Itu Aba is an island or a rock.

The determination of Itu Aba’s feature- whether a rock or an island- is important in establishing the extent of the Philippine’s territory and coverage of its sovereignty.

Itu Aba, occupied by Taiwan, is the biggest feature in the Spratlys in South China Sea which is being claimed wholly by China and Taiwan and partly by Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS defines an island as “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.”

An island is entitled to maritime regimes similar to a land territory: territorial sea (12 nautical miles from the baseline), contiguous zone (24 nm), economic exclusive zone (200 nm), continental shelf (200 nm) and extended continental shelf (350nm).
On the other hand, “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf,” according to UNCLOS.

The issue of whether Itu Aba is a rock or an island has again come to the fore with the visit of Taiwan’s outgoing President Ma Ying-jeou there last Jan. 28.

In his speech addressing the troops stationed in Itu Aba, Ma voiced his resentment that Taiwan had been ignored in the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China before the U.N Arbitral Tribunal when Itu Aba was included among the Spratlys features being contested.

Ma said:“The Philippines sought arbitration with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2013 concerning competing claims with mainland China vis-à-vis the South China Sea. This arbitration is of particular importance to our country, yet we have not been invited to participate, nor has our opinion on the matter been sought. “

Foreign Affairs officials explained that the Philippines has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan because it adheres to the One China policy, which recognizes the Beijing government as representative to the Chinese people. The People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan as its province. The Philippines’ relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), robust as it is, is limited to “people to people.” Political exchanges with Taiwan are banned under the One- China policy.

Moreover, Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations.

In his speech, Ma talked lengthily about Itu Aba or Taiping’s capability to sustain human habitation.

President Ma Ying-jeou visits Itu Aba

He said: “The Philippines holds that Taiping Island has no freshwater, and no arable soil, claiming that food and water must all be imported and human habitation is impossible. This, the Philippines says, means that it is not an island, but a rock, to which no claim can be made on territorial waters beyond 12 nautical miles. However, such statements find no basis in either science or fact; they are totally wrong. The economic, environmental, and cultural realms all provide evidence sufficient to show that the island has—and has had for over 100 years—ample resources to be self-sufficient.

“Geological study of the island shows that Taiping Island was formed perhaps 3 million years ago. Roughly 20,000 years ago, it rose upward to 100 meters above sea level. Perhaps this sheds light on why Taiping Island became the only island in the Nanshas to have its own sources of potable water.

“Annual rainfall on Taiping Island is roughly 3,000 mm. Rainwater is either trapped by the soil or seeps down into the coral below. The coral layer further down, having been there for a million years, has been lithified and become impervious to water, meaning that the island has a rich supply of groundwater. Water from the best well, the No. 5 well, has been tested by experts and found to be close to that marketed internationally under the brand name Evian in terms of conductivity and total dissolved solids. It can be drunk directly, and tastes as good as mineral water sold in stores.

“Historical documentary evidence attests to the presence of freshwater on the island. The earliest appearance of such documents is in 1879, with the Royal Navy’s The China Sea Directory, in which it attests to the use of Taiping Island by Chinese fishermen and the presence of wells, of which it states, ‘The water found in the well on that island was better than elsewhere.’

“ In 1939, a survey report on Taiping Island by a technician working at Taichu Prefecture (today’s Taichung City, Changhua County, and Nantou County) states that ‘the island has abundant potable water, sufficient for both fishing vessels and for use on the island itself.’

“ In 1946, a report written during a survey of the Nansha Islands by an ROC naval flotilla states that ‘there are several wells on the island, the water drawn from which is excellent.’ In 1994, the Council of Agriculture, in ‘Nanhai Shengtai Huanjing Diaocha Yanjiu Baogao,’ a report on the ecology of the South China Sea, states that the freshwater at two places on Taiping Island is of better quality than that found in most rivers or lakes. The Coast Guard Administration, meanwhile, last December released ‘Living Conditions on Taiping Island,’ which states that of the four wells on the island, the water of one is used to raise tilapia, while the other three can provide 65 tons of freshwater daily, and that on the average freshwater accounts for 92 percent of water drawn from these wells. Water drawn from Well No. 5, meanwhile, is 99 percent freshwater of good quality. History thus attests to the plenitude and quality of freshwater on Taiping Island, sufficient to support human life.”

In the hearing of Arbitral Tribunal on the Philippine suit against China in The Hague November last year, the Philippine panel presented an expert who testified that there is no freshwater in Itu Aba and cannot sustain human habitation. Therefore, it is a rock.

We will discuss this in the next column.