By NESTOR MATA
MALAYA
MALAYA
‘There’s no longer any doubt that China is expanding its territorial control in the South China Sea.’
The Chinese intrusion into the Ayungin Shoal, which is part of the territory of the Philippines, is doubtless part of China’s expansionist plan to control the entire South China Sea, including other areas claimed by our country and neighboring Southeast Asian nations.
The Ayungin Shoal, also known as the Second Thomas Shoal, has long been occupied by the Philippines. Last May 8, 30 Chinese fishing vessels, escorted by a Chinese Navy frigate and two Maritime Surveillance ships, intruded into the area and blocked supplies to about a dozen Filipino Marines. The shoal is a strategic gateway to the Reed Bank, which is rich in oil and natural gas and 80- nautical miles west of Palawan island at the south western end of the Philippine archipelago, well within its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.
Despite official protests by the Department of Foreign Affairs against the “provocative and illegal presence” of the Chinese ships by the Philippine government, China’s Foreign Ministry asserted its “indisputable sovereignty” over the shoal, as part of the Spratly Islands, a group of islets spread over 165 square miles, which is also claimed by Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.
This latest tension is the most contentious chapter in the decades-old territorial disputes over the South China Sea between China and its Southeast Asia neighbors. It could prove more dangerous than last year’s stand-off at Scarborough Shoal.
In 1995, China had occupied the easternmost territory of Mischief Reef, about 65 kilometers or 40 miles northeast of Second Thomas Shaol, which the Philippines occupied in 1999 by stationing the Philippine Navy’s “BRP Sierra Madre”and preventing China from moving further east, until last May.
Last March, Malaysia protested the incursion of four Chinese ships in James Shoal, about 50 miles off Sarawak on Borneo Island, rocks that are claimed by Malaysia and China, and which lie 80 kilometers off the Malaysian coast and 1,800 kilometers from the Chinese mainland. Earlier, the Chinese began sending tourist charters to the disputed islands in the South China Sea, and Chinese patrol boats even set fire to a Vietnamese fishing boat in the disputed area.
Then, Beijing expanded its regional claims to the Japanese- controlled Senkaku Islands. Eight Chinese ships entered the territorial waters of the island group, while 40 Chinese military planes few nearby to prevent Japanese nationalists from landing in the disputed islands.
Much earlier, Chinese soldiers camped 19 kilometers within Indian-controlled territory. When the Indians reinforced positions in the area with bunkers, the Chinese demanded that they be removed, and they also started building a new road into the area.
All of these incidents, according to China watchers, are part of a wider pattern, noting that in territorial disputes Chinese forces are growing more assertive and using any excuse to change the status quo in their favor. And these have sparked questions about what’s going on behind the walls of Zhongnanhai, the leadership compound in Beijing where both civilian and military leaders meet and make their decisions.
One China watcher pointed out that China was serious about asserting its claims in the South China Sea. Another one said the new tensions could prove more dangerous and warned that there is real chance of escalation or miscalculation. And still another raised the possibility of intervention by the United States to prevent China from intimidating its allies in the Southeast Asian region.
The possibility of such an American intervention may well explain President Noynoy Aquino’s tough-guy posturing, virtually challenging China to war, when he recently declared, so pompously, “The Philippines is for Filipinos, and we have the capability to resist bullies entering our backyard!”
***
Many readers wondered why I didn’t join those who were maddened by the reference to Manila as the “gates of hell” in Dan Brown’s novel “Inferno.” Many of them probably just read snatches from the book in newspaper reports but not in its entirety.
I have read the 461-page book, and you’ll find that controversial description of our metropolis in pages 351 to 353, Chapter 29 of the novel’s 104 chapters. It tells the travails of a character named Dr. Sienna Brooks when she joined a humanitarian group on a month-long trip to the Philippines. Here are excerpts from those three pages of the book:
“Sienna imagined they were going to feed poor fishermen or farmers in the countryside, which she read was a wonderland of geological beauty, with vibrant sea beds and dazzling plains. And so when the group settled among the throngs in the city of Manila —the most densely populated city on earth —Sienna could only gape in horror. She had never seen poverty on this scale…”
“For every one person Sienna fed there were hundreds more who gazed at her with desolate eyes. Manila had six-hour traffic jams, suffocating pollution, and a horrifying sex trade, whose workers consisted primarily of young children, many of whom had been sold to pimps by parents who took solace in knowing that at least their children would be fed.”
“Amid this chaos of child prostitution, panhandlers, pickpockets and worse, Sienna found herself suddenly paralyzed. All around her, she could see humanity overrun by primal instinct for survival…She cleared the tears and grime from her eyes and saw that she was standing in a kind of shantytown —a city made of pieces of corrugated metal and cardboard propped up and held together. All around her the wails of crying babies and the stench of human excrement hung in the air. ”
“I’ve run through the gates of hell,” she tells herself. And then she saw three ugly, sweaty men “approaching, salivating like wolves…” They attempted to rape her, but, after praying with all her heart “please God, deliver me from evil,” she was saved by an old woman, wielding a rusty knife in the air, who drove the three men away. “Salamat,” Sienna whispered tearfully, closed her eyes, bowed her head in a gesture of respect, but when she opened her eyes, the woman was gone.
The book is a work of fiction by Dan Brown, an international best-selling American novelist, who also authored “The Da Vinci Code,” “The Last Symbol” and “Angels & Demons.” So, why the hell should I or anyone take umbrage at his stories which sound as true as day-to-day reports in tabloids and daily newspapers?!
***
Quote of the Day: “I don’t know if truth is stranger than fiction, but it is most certainly disconcerting!” — Anon.
No comments:
Post a Comment