Provocative

By REY O. ARCILLA
MALAYA

‘China’s reported plan to intercept and take over foreign ships plying the West Philippine Sea is certainly even more provocative than the printing of her illegitimate map on her e-passports.’

THE neighborhood bully strikes again!

Soon after the issuance of e-passports with the map of China that includes the entire West Philippine Sea (WPS) printed on them, Beijing reportedly issued orders last Thursday to the police stationed in Hainan to board and take over foreign ships that “illegally enter” disputed areas in the WPS starting 1 January 2013.

Geeez, if that ain’t more provocative than the Chinese map on the e-passports, I don’t know what is.

And I thought China adheres to the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea? That move is diametrically opposed to the principles embodied in that Declaration of which she is a signatory.

The DFA issued a statement Saturday (Dec. 1) seeking immediate clarification from China on the reported plan.

“If media reports are accurate, this planned action by China is illegal and will validate the continuous and repeated pronouncements by the Philippines that China’s claim of indisputable sovereignty over virtually the entire South China Sea is not only an excessive claim but a threat to all countries,” it said.

At about the same time, Washington also said it would question the Chinese government about the media reports “to get a better understanding of what they intend.”

“So until we have a chance to do that, I think we’ll withhold comment given that it’s just press reporting at this stage,” the US State Department spokesperson said.

***

Curiously, aware as she is of the US’ main concerns in the WPS dispute which are freedom of navigation and unimpeded flow of commerce, China said, after the reports on her plan to intercept foreign vessels in the WPS came out, that “it attached great importance to freedom of navigation in the disputed areas.”

“All countries have freedom of navigation in the South China Sea in accordance with international law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing.

“China attaches great importance to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. At present there are no problems in this regard,” Hong said, adding that Beijing hoped to resolve tensions through talks.

The statement sounded to me like an assurance to the US that her concerns will not be affected.

***

I find the timing of the Chinese announcement also rather curious. Earlier in the week, US navy secretary Ray Mabus was in Beijing having talks with Chinese defense minister Liang Guanglie.

According to the official Xinhua news agency, Liang told Mabus that China hopes both sides would further cooperation in areas of mutual interest and “manage disparities when conflicts appear”. He also called for “equality, mutual benefit and practical collaboration while developing a new type of relationship between the two militaries.”

Somehow, I get this nagging feeling that the US and China have already arrived at a modus vivendi on the WPS, to the exclusion of the interests of other claimant countries.

I suggest that our government planners and thinkers look at this angle and accordingly plan our next moves on the WPS problem, instead of just yakking away at bringing the dispute to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and not doing it. Why not? Only President Noynoy Aquino can answer that.

***

Chinese embassy spokesman Zhang Hua said that the Philippines cannot use UNCLOS in making its claim over Panatag Shoal.

Even before UNCLOS, international law had long recognized the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of coastal states. Panatag Shoal is some 135 miles only from Zambales.

China claims Panatag as hers on the basis of some old map or the imaginary 9-dash line that she herself drew.

The Philippines, on the other hand, bases its claim not only on the long-recognized EEZ and the UNCLOS, but also on effective occupation and legal jurisdiction.

In any case, if China believes that her claim is solidly grounded on international law, why does she not want to bring the issue to the ITLOS which we have been long advocating?

***

Remember the recent news about the Japanese Government buying the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea from its private owner? The islands are also claimed by China.

China immediately reacted by sending warships to the vicinity of the islands. The resulting tension between the two countries eased after they agreed to talk things over.

What could have been the reason China backed down?

Well, I think aside from the fact that Japan is no pushover economically and militarily, China also knows that Japan, unlike the Philippines, has the full backing of the US.

Read the following news release of 30 November 2012 from the Pacific New Center (Guam News):

“Washington D.C… Thursday night in Washington, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved an amendment offered by Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to Japan under Article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, and to firmly counter any attempts to challenge Japan’s administration of the Senkaku Islands. Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.) cosponsored the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.”

‘This amendment is a strong statement of support for a vital ally in Pacific Asia,’ said Senator Webb. ‘Over the past several years, China has taken increasingly aggressive actions to assert its claim over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and in a broad expanse of the South China Sea. This amendment unequivocally states that the United States acknowledges the administration of Japan over the Senkaku Islands, and that this position will not be changed through threats, coercion, or military action.’

“The amendment reiterated the U.S. national interest in freedom of navigation, peace and stability, respect for international law, and unimpeded lawful commerce. It also noted U.S. opposition to any efforts to coerce, threaten to use force, or use force to resolve territorial issues. The amendment concludes by reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the defense of territories under the administration of Japan, as stated in Article V of the Treaty.”

Why didn’t Washington make the same kind of amendment to our Mutual Defense Treaty with her in the wake of China’s aggressive action in Panatag Shoal?

The answer is obvious – the US considers us as a kind of second-class ally less vital to her in the Asia-Pacific. That’s how “special” we are to her!

Go ahead, weep.

***

Senator Miriam Santiago has been hogging the headlines of late and stealing the thunder from her colleagues in the not-so-august assembly (Senate).

First, she filed a joint resolution, with Congressman Walden Bello, seeking the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). What has happened to that? Nothing, apparently.

Then she urged the government not to admit into the country Chinese nationals bearing e-passports with the map of China; attacked Vice President Jejomar Binay for propagating a political dynasty; and proposed a so-called Magna Carta for cyber space users.

For sure, Santiago is not like that American dancer/singer Jennifer Lopez whom she called a ho-hum performer.

With bated breath, I await her performance on her proposal to abrogate the VFA. I hope she is not yet done, after having grabbed the headlines with the proposal.

***

Reminders (for Noynoy’s action):

1) Filing of charges against of­ficials of the National Food Administration (NFA) during Arroyo’s illegitimate regime. Noynoy himself said on several occasions that there is documentary evidence to prove the venalities in the past in that agency.

2) Investigation of reported anomalies in the GSIS during the watch of Winston Garcia.

3) Facilitating the investigation of rampant cor­ruption in the military and police establishments.

4) Expeditious action by the AFP on the case of Jonas Burgos

***

Today is the 212th day of the sixth year of Jonas Burgos’ disappearance.

What is the reason Noynoy is taking so long to act on the bill passed by Congress on enforced disappearances?

***

From an internet friend:

A middle-aged man was telling his neighbor, “I just bought a new hearing aid. It cost me four thousand dollars, but it’s state of the art. It’s perfect.”

“Really,” said the neighbor. “What kind is it?”

“Twelve thirty…”

***

Email: roacrosshairs@yahoo.com