Scarborough Shoal: Phl facts vs Beijing fiction

[Ruisheng]

Too hard to read. Back to school for you my boy.

So many poster complain about your writing style its ridiculous. Agent Orange tells you to use paragraphs so you divide your incomprehensible rant into 2 incomprehensible blocks.

Man, that's really a great improvement ok?

 

[WuMaoCleverbot]

Manila enforced law, rescued ships in shoal
GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star) | Updated December 19, 2014 - 12:00am

“Those who bully the weak are cowards before the strong,” goes a Chinese proverb. Beijing’s communist bullies use military might to expel unarmed Filipinos from their centuries-long Scarborough Shoal fishing grounds. Yet they run away from the strength of the Philippine case at the UN International Tribunal on Law of the Sea.

The bases of the case were presented in a recent lecture, “Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal): Less Known Facts vs. Published Fiction.” Author Prof. Jay L. Batongbacal, PhD, is director of the University of the Philippines-Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea. Following is the last of a three-part condensation:

* * *

Actions confirm Manila’s consolidation of jurisdiction over Scarborough Shoal. The American colonial government listed it in the official 1918 Census of the Philippine Islands. Decades later the sovereignty over the shoal directly was tackled by the Commonwealth Government.

On Dec. 6, 1937, Mr. Wayne Coy, Office of the US High Commissioner for the Philippines, specifically asked Capt. Thomas Maher, head of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, whether Scarborough Shoal had been claimed by any country. Maher replied on Dec. 10, 1937, that there was no information whether any nation, including Britain, had laid claim. His office had no power to decide on sovereignty, he said, but Spanish records existed, particularly the 1800 survey of the Santa Lucia.

Maher wrote: “If this survey would confer title on Spain or be a recognition of sovereignty, or claim for same without protest, the reef would apparently be considered as part of Spanish territory, the transfer of which would be governed by the treaty of Nov. 7, 1900.” He suggested a new survey of the shoal, and installation of navigational light.

Interest in formally claiming the shoal went on in succeeding months. Jorge B. Vargas wrote Coy to inquire about the status of Scarborough. Vargas stated: “The Commonwealth Government may desire to claim title thereto should there be no objection on the part of the United States Government to such action.”

Coy forwarded the letter to the US Dept. of War, which in turn gave it to the Dept. of State. The correspondence between the two offices is revealing. On July 27, 1938, Sec. of State Cordell Hull informed Sec. of War Harry Woodring: “This Department has no information in regard to the ownership of the shoal other than that which appears in the file attached to the letter under reference. While the shoal appears outside the limits of the Philippine archipelago as described in Article III of the American-Spanish Treaty of Paris of Dec. 10, 1898, it would seem that, in the absence of a valid claim by any other government, the shoal should be regarded as included among the islands ceded to the United States by the American-Spanish treaty of Nov. 7, 1900.”

Hull went on: “Accordingly, in the absence of evidence of a superior claim to Scarborough Shoal by any other government, the Department of State would interpose no objection to the proposal of the Commonwealth Government to study the possibility of the shoal as an aid to air and ocean navigation, provided that the Navy Department and the Department of Commerce, which are interested in air and ocean navigation in the Far East, are informed and have expressed no objection to the course of action contemplated by the Commonwealth Government.”

Subsequently, Acting Sec. of the Navy W.R. Furlong wrote Acting Sec. of War Louis Johnson: “It is noted that the Commonwealth Government of the Philippine Islands desires to study the possibilities of this reef, particularly as to its value as an aid to air navigation and with the possibility of later claiming title thereto should there be no objection on the part of the United States Government to such action. The papers accompanying your letter, which are returned herewith, have been carefully considered and this Department has no objection to the course of action contemplated by the Commonwealth Government.”

On Oct. 19, 1938, Secretary of Commerce Paul Frizzell wrote the Secretary of War: “It is noted that the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines desires to study the value of Scarborough Shoal as an aid to air navigation with the possibility of later claiming title thereto. It is further noted that the Secretary of State will interpose no objection to the proposal of the Commonwealth Government, provided the Navy and Commerce departments express no objection. Please be advised that the Civil Aeronautics Authority sees no objection to the proposed action.”

The correspondence not only confirms Philippine Commonwealth jurisdiction, but also later lays the ground for exercise of sovereignty. Throughout the Commonwealth Period, Manila considered Scarborough Shoal under its exclusive sphere of influence, marking it prominently in maps, and continuously exercising maritime jurisdiction. This is seen in the Coast Pilot Guides issued by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, and in search and rescue operations on the shoal.

With the birth of the Philippine Republic in 1946, Bajo de Masinloc continued to be subject to its power. In 1961 the Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey sent a hydrographic-topographic team, led by Lt. Commander Antonio P. Ventura. They spent four days mapping and sounding to produce a detailed chart of Bajo de Masinloc and environs. A hut with a tide and current station was installed on the biggest rock.

Two years after, 1963, the local press reported the rescue of the shipwrecked French Arsineo. A commercial and a US Navy vessel brought the crew to Manila. This was only one of many shipwrecks on the shoal. The Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey was responsible for marking the wrecks on nautical charts. Earlier versions of Chart 4200, the complete map of the archipelago, indicated shipwrecks and navigational lights on the shoal.

The year 1963 also saw a major exercise of absolute sovereignty, when the Philippine Navy discovered a smuggler’s base on the shoal. The smuggler’s base was used for pick-up and drop-off of “blue seal” cigarettes and other contraband. Newspapers published photos of the facility. Navy ships bombarded the wharf twice in the same month. No other government action can express sovereignty so completely and convincingly than this enforced destruction of illegal facilities.

To discourage rebuilding of the smuggler’s base and keep naval presence around the shoal, the Philippines invited a US Naval Operating Area, covering a 20-mile radius around the shoal. This turned Scarborough Shoal into a target and bombing range for the Philippine and US Navies. The world was notified of this fact through the Coast Pilot Guides, issued by the Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey.

Absolute sovereignty continued to the 1970s and ‘80s. The Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Navy issued Notices to Mariners, warning passing ships of live fire exercises, including missile practice by the US Navy operating out of Subic Bay.

Conducted peacefully and openly, all these exercises of sovereignty were uninterrupted. No country, including China, protested. Not even to as late as summer of 1997, when the Coast and Geodetic Survey Division of the National Mapping and Resource Information Agency made a GPS survey of the shoal to identify points to be used to create the archipelagic baseline system under the UNCLOS.

(Full text of Dr. Batongbacal’s lecture, with photos and maps, at the Institute for Maritime and Oceanic Affairs website: imoa.ph.)

Manila enforced law, rescued ships in shoal | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

 

[William Hung]

The Fog of Law: China's Great South China Sea Dilemma | The National Interest

The Fog of Law: China's Great South China Sea Dilemma

Richard Javad Heydarian
December 19, 2014

Recent months have witnessed an impressive Chinese diplomatic blitzkrieg, with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang feverishly courting friends and foes alike, proposingambitioustrading agreements and acquiescing to various confidence building measures (CBMS) aimed at de-escalating geopolitical tensions in the region. But China’s intensifying legal battle with the Philippines has injected new uncertainties into the picture. What has emerged in recent days is a new chapter of confrontation between Beijing and its Southeast Asian neighbors, particularly Manila and Hanoi. Interestingly, the United States has joined the legal fray by expressing its stance on—or, to put it more accurately, criticism of—China’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The Fog of Law

On the surface, China’s claims seem to be unambiguously ambitious and provocative. Latest Chinese maps indicate Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the entirety of the South China Sea. Drawing on the doctrine of “historical rights”, China claims “inherent and indisputable” sovereignty over much of the South China Sea. A deeper look, however, reveals the inherently ambiguous nature of China’s claims: It is still unclear whether China is treating the disputed waters as a virtual internal lake, or, alternatively, only laying claim to individual features and their surrounding territorial waters. Beijing has yet to clarify the precise coordinates of the “nine-dash-line” doctrine, which hasn’t been consistently laid out in Chinese documentations.

The emerging consensus is that the ambiguity is deliberate and strategic: China, through its expansive (but imprecise) cartographic claims, can project toughness and patriotic ambition before a hypernationalist domestic audience without risking the legal ramifications of explicitly defending what many see as inherently indefensible maritime claims.

Lawyers rarely agree on anything. But based on my recent conversations with leading international-law experts, here in the United States and beyond, practically everyone agrees that China’s notorious “nine-dash-line” doctrine has little basis in modern international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As an artery of global trade, the South China Sea is by no means a bay or any near-coastal water that can be subjected to historical, rights-based claims. Not to mention, China has neither exercised continuous and uncontested control over the area, nor have its neighbors formally accepted China’s ambitious claims. Throughout the postcolonial period, China’s newly independent Southeast Asian neighbors, from the Philippines to Malaysia and (South and North) Vietnam, have assiduously sought to fortify their positions in the South China Sea.

The UNCLOS, which came into effect in the immediate aftermath of the end of Cold War, provided new sets of principles to guide maritime sovereignty claims, determine maritime delimitation issues and steer a rules-based resolution of territorial disputes. As a signatory to the UNCLOS, all key claimant states in the South China Sea are expected to play by the existing rules of the game. (Although Washington is not a signatory to the UNCLOS, thanks to the intransigence of a hardline minority in the U.S. Senate, it has observed the principles of UNCLOS in actual policy.) To be fair, China has (under Article 298 of the UNCLOS) opted out of compulsory arbitration over territorial delimitation, military and sovereignty-related issues. So it should come as no surprise that Beijing has boycotted the arbitration procedures, initiated by the Philippines (under Article 287 and Annex VII of the UNCLOS) in 2013, under the aegis of the Arbitral Tribunal at The Hague.

Shortly before the December 15 deadline to submit its defense to the Arbitral Tribunal, China released (December 7) a position paper, which forwarded three major arguments: First, the arbitration body has no jurisdiction over the Philippines’ complaint, which fundamentally concerns questions of sovereignty; second, China has “indisputable and inherent sovereignty” over the disputed features in the South China Sea, since its “historical rights” transcend the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS; and lastly, the Philippines has violated prior agreements, both bilateral and multilateral, by initiating compulsory arbitration over the South China Sea disputes.

A United Front

The Philippines, however, maintains that it is precisely China that has violated prior agreements, particularly the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), which explicitly discourages competing parties from unilaterally altering the status quo in disputed areas. In recent years, China has expanded construction activities in both the Paracel and Spratly islands, widened its paramilitary patrols across disputed waters and coercively challenged the Philippines’ claims in the Scarborough Shoal (2012) and the Second Thomas Shoal (since mid-2013).

Moreover, the Arbitral Tribunal, the Philippines argues, has the mandate to determine whether the complaint against China falls under its jurisdiction, despite China’s expressed opposition to compulsory arbitration. To skirt around the issue of sovereignty, which transcends the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Philippines astutely framed its case as one that concerns (i) the determination of the validity of China’s claims based on the provisions of the UNCLOS, and (ii) the determination of the nature of the disputed features (Article 121), specifically whether they can be appropriated, as well as generate their own territorial waters. It is conceivable that the Arbitral Tribunal will assert jurisdiction over the disputes, as well as assess the merits of the Philippines’ memorial before the end of 2016.

Although the United States doesn’t take a position on competing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, it has indirectly supported the Philippines’ position by (i) calling for the resolution of the disputes in accordance to the international law (i.e., UNCLOS) and (ii) explicitly questioning the validity of China’s “nine-dash-line” doctrine. As a treaty ally, Manila, quite naturally, expects maximum support from Washington amid the ongoing disputes. So far, however, the Obama administration hasn’t explicitly guaranteed American military support in an event of conflict over disputed features within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Obama administration is engaged in a broader balancing act, which tries to maintain stable bilateral ties with China on one hand, and express American commitment to its bilateral security alliance with the Philippines on the other.

 

[Fsjal]

Then you are also confirming in some indirect ways that the Philippines is owned and ruled by the Chinese because the 10% is basically the well-to-do and the elite, all of which are pure Chinese or have Chinese ancestry.

I'm partially offended, since I have Chinese background, and plus, I come from a wealthy but financially conservative family.

It's not the fault of us Tsinoys who are just simply wealthy.

 

[JayMandan]

I'm partially offended, since I have Chinese background, and plus, I come from a wealthy but financially conservative family.

It's not the fault of us Tsinoys who are just simply wealthy.

"Kuripot" hehe. Typical in Chinese blood I guess. My gf is part Chinese and her dad, may he RIP, was very Chinese in every aspect and super Kuripot din. Filipinos in my opinion although are very hard working, they are more into short term pleasure.

 

[Cossack25A1]

I'm partially offended, since I have Chinese background, and plus, I come from a wealthy but financially conservative family.

It's not the fault of us Tsinoys who are just simply wealthy.

Then why is it your blood compatriots are against the idea of opening the country to foreign direct investments (by removing the 60/40 Economic Restrictions) that would stimulate the economy, create jobs that are usually found outside the country and rely less on OFWs? What is it that the Tsinoys who dominate the PH economy afraid of Foreign Direct Investments? Competition from foreign companies? The idea of opening the economy to foreign investments is NOT TO STEAL FROM TSINOYS - if they cannot thrived in a competition, it is their fault; the idea of this is to let the non-Sinic Filipino to have economic mobility through the jobs created by foreign direct investments without leaving the country and destroy their families yet your blood compatriots who dominates the economy of the PH are against the idea, in fact, it was a blood compatriot of yours (Corazon Aquino is a Tsinoy) who enshrined the 60/40 Economic Restriction that prevents foreign investors investing here directly!

It is not about because the Tsinoys simply being wealthy, hell that reasoning makes you an arrogant one, similar to Bob Ong. Why are your blood compatriots afraid of non-Sinic Filipinos having economic mobility, pulling everyone from low class to middle class without resorting to being slaves in other countries?

And don't tell me what the government tells about the so-called investments; BPO is a dead-end career.

"Kuripot" hehe. Typical in Chinese blood I guess. My gf is part Chinese and her dad, may he RIP, was very Chinese in every aspect and super Kuripot din. Filipinos in my opinion although are very hard working, they are more into short term pleasure.

Sadly, that is a fault in our part.

 

[Aepsilons]

"Kuripot" hehe. Typical in Chinese blood I guess. My gf is part Chinese and her dad, may he RIP, was very Chinese in every aspect and super Kuripot din. Filipinos in my opinion although are very hard working, they are more into short term pleasure.

Hindi lang ang mga insek pilipino ay "kuripot". Ang ibig na sabihin ay, anong problema sa "kuripot" ? Yung ang term sa 'Fiscal Conservative' diba ? The term "Kuripot" shouldn't be observed with a sense of shame, but a sign of one's character, one's control of one's finances.

Plus, I've some good Filipino friends who could fall in the category of "kuripot", but are successful in their fields; Nursing and Medicine.

 

[JayMandan]

Hindi lang ang mga insek pilipino ay "kuripot". Ang ibig na sabihin ay, anong problema sa "kuripot" ? Yung ang term sa 'Fiscal Conservative' diba ? The term "Kuripot" shouldn't be observed with a sense of shame, but a sign of one's character, one's control of one's finances.

Plus, I've some good Filipino friends who could fall in the category of "kuripot", but are successful in their fields; Nursing and Medicine.

No no no nothing is wrong with being Kuripot, I am a firm believer of "walang basagan ng trip"

 

[Aepsilons]

No no no nothing is wrong with being Kuripot, I am a firm believer of "walang basagan ng trip"

Ha ha ha ! Ko rek ka dyan!

No no no nothing is wrong with being Kuripot, I am a firm believer of "walang basagan ng trip"

A friend of mine would always say to me, "No money, No Honey..."

 

[xunzi]

Ya sure then prove it in the courts then oh wait the theif is too afraid to show no face it all talk and no show is what you trolls are all about.

LOL. Why should we go to court? For what? We said many times that we will not be press, bully, or harass to go to court by anyone. If we participate in any court activity, it is purely to demonstrate our patient to resolve peacefully.

 

[Zero_wing]

LOL. Why should we go to court? For what? We said many times that we will not be press, bully, or harass to go to court by anyone. If we participate in any court activity, it is purely to demonstrate our patient to resolve peacefully.

Ya building islands and stealing resources and killing the wildlife is far more better

 

[feilong]

Why pinoy(annoy or anals) people wanting international court? International create by US of A aha, of course pinoy (annoy or anals) want to take to that court with fake evident, US will turn to real evidence when pinoy girls bend over. Yum yum girlsssss.

 

[JayMandan]

The risk of embarrassment is just too great that's why.

 

[welcomeJason]

Well all the treaties and historical records mentioned regarding Scarborough Shoal and other areas in West Philippines Sea (SCS) disputed waters has been superseded by UNCLOS, a convention treaty signed by Philippines, China and other nations in early 90's. UNCLOS prescribes that all member nations are entitled to 200 n. miles or 370 km EEZ ( Exclusive Economic Zone ) measured from the base line sea shore of the country. UNCLOS also gives these member countries, the sovereign rights to exploit all the marine resources ( including fish, turtles, oil, gas, sand, corals, etc ) within the EEZ of the country.

Scarborough Shoal is only about 138 miles from Zambales and clearly within our EEZ.

View attachment 176076

Therefore, the Philippines (and no other country) has the sovereign rights to all the resources in Scarborough Shoal, as well as other shoals and reefs within PH's EEZ, as prescribed by UNCLOS., So you should stay away from our EEZ.


Typical 50 cent propaganda when you can no longer rebuke with valid points.

When you become philippine province,then your propose will be considerated.

We took back.


Meiyou biyao quheta jieshi falv tiaowen，bijing women bushi zhuanye renyuan。yebuyao shiyong tai guoji de wenzi，huigei pangguan de ren liuxia buhao de yinxiang。

萌萌哒

 

[Cossack25A1]

When you become philippine province,then your propose will be considerated.


萌萌哒

Oh thank you for finally spitting out what the Mainland Chinese government had planned for some time. But before that could happen, at least prepare a million body bags because we will be waiting.