 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Batanes is Taiwanese?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Jan. 28, 2007 For the Standard Today, January 30 issue A retired, former high-ranking Philippine naval officer has emailed to me the following article written by a Chinese history professor which, in a nutshell, claims that the Batanes Islands are not rightfully a part of the Republic of the Philippines because they were not part of the Philippine Islands that were ceded by Spain to the United States of America through the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Read and judge for yourself. Bashi Strait: a lesson in geography By Chen Hurng-yu Thursday, Sep 23, 2004, Page 8. There are two groups of islands between Taiwan and Luzon Island in the Philippines. The Batan, or the Batanese Islands, are located close to Taiwan at a distance of 190km, and the Babuyan Islands are located close to Luzon Island. The Batan Islands are comprised of 10 small islands, the largest being Itbayat, followed by Batan Island. The Batan Islands cover an area of 210km2. Research has shown that the people living on the islands have unique traits. They say they belong to the Ivatan people, and the local language is also called Ivatan. According to one explanation, this people may have migrated from Taiwan and later mixed with the Spanish colonizers living there. Because the Batan Islands are located near Taiwan, Taiwanese fishermen have traditionally fished in the area around the islands. As a result of regular contact, some Taiwanese fishermen have taken up residence on the islands, and there have been marriages with the local population, which has led to some locals understanding some Hoklo, commonly known as Taiwanese. After the Spanish were defeated by the US in 1898, one of the conditions of the peace treaty was that Spain cede the Philippines to the US. But a close reading of the US-Spanish Treaty of Paris is surprising: the northernmost part of the Philippine territory ceded by Spain to the US ends at the 20th parallel, or south of the Balintang Channel. This means that the Batan Islands fall outside the scope of the peace treaty. What does this mean? Was it a measurement mistake? Or was it due to other reasons? To deal with these questions, we have to go back to 1895 and the maritime border agreement signed by Spain and Japan. On Aug. 7, 1895, during the Japanese occupation of Taiwan, Japan and Spain signed an agreement delineating the borders of Taiwan and the Philippines. The agreement defined "the middle of the navigable channel of Bashi parallel to the latitude as the Western Pacific border between Japan and Spain." Because the agreement did not define borders in terms of latitude and longitude, and because there was no definition of what was meant by the Bashi Strait, the unclear geographical scope created problems in later talks between the US and Spain. In June 1896, war broke out between the US and Spain. The US defeated the Spanish fleet in the Bay of Manila, thereby winning the war. Representatives of the US and Spain reached an agreement on Nov. 28, but did not reveal the contents. A newspaper therefore guessed at the scope of Philippine territory demanded by the US, writing: "It is believed that the definition of the limits of the Philippine group in the American demands will be as follows: From 5� 32' north latitude to 19� 38' north latitude, and from 117� east longitude to 126� east longitude, thus covering about 1,000 miles north and south and 600 miles east and west." This report shows that the most northerly point of the Philippine group of islands as agreed to by Spain and accepted by the US was south of the 20th parallel. This rumor was later verified by the official agreement. The US and Spain then signed a peace treaty in Paris on Dec.10, 1898. Article 3 of the treaty specifies that Spain should cede the Philippine islands it occupied to the US, as defined in terms of longitude and latitude. The text of Article 3 reads: "Spain hereby cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippines Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: A line running from West to East along or near the Twentieth (20th) parallel of North latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bashi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude East of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude East of Greenwich to the..." In 1895, Spain had not defined "the middle of the navigable channel of Bashi." The negotiations between Spain and the US in 1898 clearly specified that it was located on the "20th parallel of the North latitude" and officially recognized that the islands north of this line belonged to Japan. Spain's representatives during the negotiations insisted that the US' representatives only could take possession of the islands south of the 20th parallel. This was accepted by the US and the border was set at the 20th parallel. Regardless of how the Bashi Strait is defined, Spain said during the negotiations with the US that it could not cede to the US islands that did not belong to Spain. They insisted that the border be drawn along the 20th parallel. It is also important to recognize that when Spain and the US signed the peace treaty in Paris, Spain respected the regulations of the 1895 agreement between Spain and Japan. Furthermore, how is "the middle of the navigable channel of Bashi" related to the 20th parallel? As the Spanish negotiator at the time understood it, the Bashi Strait is the strait stretching from Taiwan to Luzon Island, which places the middle along the 20th parallel. The Spanish representative opposed the US representative's position that the area south of 21 degrees 30 minutes north latitude should be ceded to the US. Following navigation practice at the time, there were two navigable lanes in the Bashi Strait: one was the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Batan Islands, and the other was the Balintang Channel between the Batan Islands and the Babuyan Islands. At the time -- 1895 to 1898 -- the Bashi Channel was not the navigable sea lane normally used. Ships at the time were not as powerful, so boats and ships traveling to Taiwan or Japan would normally go through the Balintang Channel when passing west of Luzon. After reaching the Pacific, they would turn north and aim for the south of Taiwan or directly for Japan. This sea lane follows the Japan Current, and was probably the main sea lane at the time. This is the case in sea lane charts in many books from that time. Boats would not cross the Balintang Channel into the Bashi Channel only to then cross the Bashi Channel to reach the Pacific, because such a route would encounter a powerful counter-current branching off the Japan Current which flows from the east to the west, making it an inappropriate route. Based on this, Spain probably conducted its negotiations with both Japan and the US based on the contemporary understanding of what constituted the navigable sea lane: "the middle of the navigable channel of Bashi" was the channel along the 20th parallel, which today is called the Balintang Channel. In a letter to US Secretary of State John Hay on Jan. 12, 1899, John Bassett Moore, legal council to the US negotiation delegation, wrote that he believed the dispute regarding the Batan Islands located north of the 20th parallel could be discussed with Japan and resolved by reaching an agreement. The US government did not accept Moore's suggestion, and on Jan. 10, 1900, it sent troops to occupy the Batan Islands. Was that a rightful occupation? As explained above, the Batan Islands were not "no man's land," but should be considered as belonging to Japan, which, however, never had occupied them. It seems the US thus had no right to occupy them based on the claim that the islands were no man's land. The US occupation was tantamount to invasion. By unilaterally extending Philippine territory from the 20th parallel to the 21st parallel without prior negotiations with Taiwan, the "Republic Act No. 3046: Act to define the baseline of the territorial sea of the Philippines" promulgated by the Philippine government on June 17, 1961 clearly conflicted with the Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain. Regardless, from the perspective of international law, the arrangement concerning the Batan Islands set up by the US and Spain in treaty form in 1898 confirmed that the islands were part of the territory of Taiwan, which at the time was under Japanese control. An international treaty should hold more binding power than the unclear 1895 agreement between Spain and Japan. The Philippines' unilateral action in 1961 cannot invalidate the 1898 Paris Treaty between the US and Spain, because that treaty involves the territory of a third party. The Philippines cannot unilaterally define its northern border without consultations with that third party. From a juridical perspective, the legitimacy of the Philippine occupation of the Batan Islands is questionable. Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of history at National Chengchi University. Translated by Perry Svensson ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 at www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Batanes is Taiwanese?� Dear Tony, The right question to be asked is: Is Batanes Chinese? Taiwan will be part of Mainland China , the only question is when and by what means. But we can be sure the same way as we can be certain that the sun rises on the east that Formosa will be back to the fold of China . By extension, the imminent claim of Taiwan to Batanes group of islands will be "inherited" by China whose geopolitics in our region should be a great cause of concern. I am having suspicion whether the academic Chen Hurng-yu who wrote that truly "explosive" article has Chinese "connection" - in a less benign sense of the term. FIlipino Beijing watchers should be alarmed by this seemingly "academic" think-piece. Joe Almonte has been sounding this alarm for quite awhile, as I have been doing as well. With the monstrous growth of China, its exploding population, environmental decay, industrial mutations, and a brewing social dysfunction beneath the veneer of being THE darling of the globalization cabal, it is expected that the Chinese leadership will divert and distract social and political disenchantment by drumming up the "nationalist tune" of the Chinese people as a chosen civilization to lead Asia and the world. The Nazi doctrine of Liebensraum might be resurrected in this part of the world, and the justification can be easily cooked up, for there have always been Chinese communities in almost all countries in the Asia Pacific. The signs are clear, the indications cannot be ignored. If the Philippines will continue to be blinded by the buffoonery of our domestic politics, and lose the larger picture of the struggle of near-future strategic rivalry, then we can say goodbye to our identity as a nation with our own history and pride. Onli in da stupid en moronik Pilipins. A Cassandra like you, Ibn Khaldun, [email protected], Jan. 31, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Good for the Ivatans! Tonton Mapa, [email protected], Jan. 31, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww And when was Taiwan declared a republic? Taiwan is not even the right country to be raising this territorial issue. The more that the Philippines should re-affirm its one-China policy. Ferdinand Anno, [email protected], Jan. 31, 2007 MY REPLY. The Republic of China was declared in 1949 after the Kuomintang Government of Chiang kai-shek was defeated in the Chinese Civil War and fled to the island of Taiwan or Formosa . wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir, Allow me to email you an exchange of ideas of Naval Officers in the Philippine Navy forum regarding the same issue. Thank you. Dom �97, [email protected], Jan. 31, 2007 Start of Message: It�s not a big issue sir.batanes group of islands has never been claimed by the taiwanese nor any other third country.it has been and always be a part of the philippines . I do believe that this taiwanese professor was just drumbeating the chinese nationalist sentiment that the whole islands in southeast asia including the philippines are part of the greater south china lake.the same reasoning why they claim spratly.he was just good in bending the available data to support his wicked theories and nobody yet from the Philippine academe who is good enough to slam the facts to the face of the taiwanese professor. the same reasoning why the aussie and the kiwi are extending thier influence over the philippines because of the chinese expansionist mentality. Antonio F <frosty781@...> wrote: Oh boy, if the article by this taiwanese professor reaches the philippine media oh boy, this will create a diplomatic flap or incident. maybe for now, its better to let sleeping dogs remain asleep =) anyway, it was probably written by an eccentric=) From: "Carlos L. Agustin" Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PhilNavy] Bashi Strait: a lesson in geography--HOGWASH I hope Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:06:03 +0800 I just hope that the illustrious Prof Chen Hurng-yu of the National Chengchi University, a prolific analyst and writer and one of the foremost experts on the Taiwan-China problem, had misread some of his sources. As far as I remember from practical experience, there has been no commentary whatsoever about points from Y'Ami down to Batan belonging to Taiwan . I was in Kaohshung, third largest container port in the world, and Taipeh in 1988 and heard of no such concern (of course this ilimited experience). The first time I was in the area was on board the USS Boyd (DD544) on summer training as a First Class midshipman with DESRON 15, which provided DDs for the Formosa Patrol as we called it 1959. I would occasionally see Y'Ami but the Boyd never entered Philippine territory, as the AOR was the Taiwan Strait between the mainland and Taiwan , to keep both sides from invading the other. In relative terms, ROC and PRC military power were almost at par then. I visited Batan Island as CO, RPS Capiz (PS27) in the summer of 1972 with a PC intel team searching for a reported gunrunning boat bringing Chinese firearms for the NPA. We couldn't find it and abandoned search after a week when we were asked to check on something in Masbate (dropping the PC team at Mariveles on the way). Two weeks later the Karagatan grounded in Digoyo Point, and the rest is history. It was good intel, after all. I was later assigned on the Pacific coast patrol (from Isabela to Sorsogon) and supporting the PA troops in Isabela and Quezon as CO of RPS Iloilo (PS32) and after the declaration of martial law as, the RPS Cebu (PS28). Later twice I visited Batanes, once as PCG Commandant in 1992 (I improved the PCG Station in Basco, and flew in to check) and again as PPA GM in 1996 or 1997, in preparation of a plan to improve the Batan wharf. Gov Castillejos on the latter visit drove my party around the island on his pick up (I revisited the abandoned LORSTA also) and told me about his experiences before World War II with workers hired by the Japanese contractor to build the coastal road, but more so noting that the Japanese engineers were very busy photographing places and making the maps more accurate. Now we know why, Batan was the first island invaded in 1941, because of the presence of the airstrip. The so-called issue on "navigational practice" is Greek to me. Ships and craft pass anywhere, any direction. Maybe he's talking about pre-US colonial period when effect of current and wind is more acute for sailing vessels but I cannot see how the Kurosho can differ much between the Balintang and Babuyan channels. The latest diplomatic development in support of the defined treaty limit that I know was the 1993 negotiation for fishing sea lanes between Taiwan and the Philippines . I was a member of the Philippine panel, and there was no question on where the territorial limit ended. Chuck Agustin, [email protected] [PhilNavy] Digest Number 983 From: Ervin Mundo To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PhilNavy] Bashi Strait : a lesson in geography Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:47:05 -0800 (PST) (Unedited) Sirs, There is a book about the great asian migration.try to google for more details. the first wave was from china all down to new zealand.when i had the opportunity to interact with the kiwis while transporting maori elders to one of the islands in the pacific and in the course of the discussion whileat sea.there are several maori words that are similar to ilocano in meaning and pronounciation.small world isn't. the second wave was the other way around. the malays from indo-malay penisula wave through the barangays migrated all the way up to southern taiwan.in one of the national geographic article, this was cited.the closer semblance of the southern taiwanese to the malays. i had the luxury in immersing myselves in all theinhabited islands of batanes including the northernmost yami which is uninhabited with the phil coast guard lighthouse as the only government structure in the island.way back in 2000, i was able to expereince a unique mass in my entire catholic life.done in the old style, the preist are officiating the mass while facing the altar not the people in pure latin.the reason they say was that the spanish priest who left luzon after the American occupation do still practice the friar concept even during the short japanese occupation during world war 2.they say that it was only in the 80's that the pinoy secular priest started to occupy churches of batanes and still practice the latin mass. the americans did set foot in batanes, the pacific loran station is situated parallel to the batanes airport. the taiwanese author has his own way of bending the facts to met his theories.the paris agreement is still debatable in the archipelagic claim of the philippines in the inernational fora.nice thinking although... Antonio F wrote: Well, for me, the practical answer to this question is not the strict legality mentioned by the author but rather, what dialect or language do the people of batan islands speak? do they speak Taiwanese or filipino. do they feel more taiwanese or more of filipino ? this will show the real history of those islands or of taiwan for that matter. I understand that some of the the aboriginal taiwanese tribes trace their ancestors to northern luzon so historically, the original inhabitants of taiwan were filipino but were overpowered by waves of chinese immigrants. In fact , the taiwanese who have more ' taiwan ' blood as compared to chinese blood have a darker skin and/or bigger eyes. I wonder what PN officers have to say about the inhabitants of batan islands ? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I believe the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea will supersede any ambiguity about Philippine ownership over the Batanes Islands . If a geographer can give us a definitive exposition on our archipelagic territorial rights as applied to the Batanes group of islands under Part IV of the UNCLOS, then this Taiwanese professor could be proven wrong. It is bad enough that China is trying to scare us away from the Kalayaan islands; they might even further try this by making a claim on the Batanes group indirectly through their insistent claim over Taiwan itself. This would mean that China would someday try to exercise control over the Bashi Channel where a lot of international shipping traffic crosses from the South China Sea (this is for reference only and does not imply Chinese ownership over the area!) to the Western Pacific. In any case, I believe that "middle of the Bashi Channel" referred to in the Treaty of Paris does refer to the actual geographical middle of the Bashi Channel near the 20th north latitude, or around the 21st north latitude. If they meant Balintang Channel, then the treaty makers would have been specific. Another matter, the Japanese or natives of Taiwan never occupied the Batanes islands and established formal control. The Americans did so and effectively made the Batanes part of Philippine colonial territory. UNCLOS can be read at http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/losc.htm Have a nice day. RR, [email protected], Jan. 31, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww So what do we do? Sabah was taken from us by the British. Might makes right? China also wants the Spratly Islands . So many disputed lands. Biggest one is Israel . Virgilio Gonzales , California , Feb. 01, 2007 MY REPLY. Biggest one is actually the Russian Maritime Provinces. In his book The Coming War Between Russia and China, the late New York Times correspondent, Harrison Salisbury, wrote that there is an official map in Beijing that shows the territories that the Chinese claim as theirs, which had been grabbed by foreigners. The map includes two million square kilometers of land which the Russian tsars grabbed from China in the 17th and 18th centuries. In this map, the Chinese also claim as theirs the Sulu archipelago, probably on the grounds that the Sultan of Sulu in the 13th or 14th century gave tribute to the Chinese emperor and recognized Chinese suzerainty over this sultanate.. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww After wading through all the navigational shenanigans, it seems the bottom line is always greed: what the islands have that will yield profits to the legal owner. Fishing rights? A possible military base? More forests to log? Rare animals to sell? If Batanes were merely a string of uninhabitable scruffy rocks, I doubt there would be this kind of attention. I hope this will not become yet another painful turf war. We never learn, do we? Cayo Marschner, [email protected], Moraga CA , Feb. 01, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, I understand that this position could be traced to certain segments in Taiwanese society that insist that Taiwan is separate from China and has its own history - I think that this is also part of the sensitivity that Beijing has in relation to the new direction (they claim) that the re-opened National Museum in Taipei is taking, i.e., minimizing reference (according to Beijing) to the source of the antiquities, namely, from the mainland. Ruy Moreno , [email protected], Feb. 01, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Assuming there is some merit to what this Chen is saying, Taiwan still has no personality to claim since it is only a province of China. Pachelo Lao, [email protected], Feb.01, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww It is ours. It is part of our juridical territory. People there have voted for their representatives to represent them in the Philippine Congress , a body politic which they adhere to. The Philippine government has effective control over it. The people chose to be part of the Philippine Republic by obeying Philippine laws, participating in national elections, identifying themselves as Filipinos. Let us not glorify articles written by those who want to dismember us by publishing them. Apolonio Anota, Singapore, [email protected], Feb. 01, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww With regards to this article: http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?...aya_jan30_2007 That Taiwanese historian is bullshit. He is making-up his own story. His geography proved him nothing. It appears that he doesn't have a logically functioning brain . Batanes was already occupied by the Spaniards since the 1600's. The real history of Batanes was documented by the Spanish Friars. Therefore, the Taiwanese historian has no basis at all, Dream On! They really think in reverse. Batanes rightfully belongs to the Philippines . PERIOD. In 1782, the Ivatans chose to be subjects of the King of Spain, like the rest of the Philippines . Geography is not a basis for claiming a country, but the sovereignty of the people that dwell in it is. (No name given), [email protected], Feb. 01, 2007 . History of Batanes (from Lakbay Pilipinas) About Batanes | Resorts & Hotels | Batanes Dive Sites | Vacation Packages | History | Restaurants | Activities in Batanes | Getting There | Getting Around | Travel Tips | Shopping | Learn Ivatan | Tourist Information | Batanes Map The Ivatans lived in relatively well-populated settlements at the time western travelers visited the islands. William Dampier, an English buccaneer, visited Batanes in 1687 and found the people organized into communities built around protected settlements called idjangs, which were usually defensive positions on top of steep hills. The Dominican friars attempted to Christianize the Ivatans as early as 1686 but the efforts were abandoned with the death of two resident missionaries. In 1718, missionaries made another attempt to bring the people of Batanes under the Cross. Missions directed from the island of Calayan in the Babuyan Group were sent to Batanes to urge the residents to resettle in the Babuyanes. It was to the credit of Governor Jose Basco y Vargas that the islands were finally brought under the Spanish Crown in 1782. Batanes was annexed to the colony the following year but the inhabitants remained unreconciled to their loss of liberty. The islands were constituted into a separate province but it was later downgraded to the status of a town and attached to the province of Cagayan . The islands regained the status as a province in 1855 but was again reduced to a dependency of Cagayan in 1900 when the Americans took control of the islands. In 1909, by virtue of Act 1952, Batanes was again established as a separate province. Because of its strategic location, the Batanes was one of the first points of attack by the invading Japanese forces at the start of the Pacific hostilities of the Second World War. During the 1950s and 1960s the Philippine government encouraged the Ivatans to resettle in other parts of the country. As a result of that program, Ivatan communites were established in Mindanao . PRE-HISTORY: FROM THE LEGENDARY PAST TO 1686 Batanes pre-history is largely an unexpected field: and what is known of it today is from observations derived from a meager number of artifacts found by Pio Montenegro and his companions in some excavations they made on the islands from 1931 to 1935, and recorded by H. Otley Berger in his "Outline Review of Philippine Archeology." For pre-history folklore is of little help, and there is not much of this available yet.. The pre-historic Ivatans lived in small tribal communities close to the sea and water springs. They saw to it that they could seek refuge in primitive rock fortresses in times of attack from enemies. Their ammunition consisted of stones and probably wooden equipment. They left traces of stone tools and used locally manufactured earthern pots and jars for household needs. Probably in later times, they began to use small quantities of iron tools, god ornaments and beads. Porcelain and stoneware jars found by Montenegro suggest contact with other people beyond the islands. It is supposed that trade relations had existed between the Ivatans and the peoples of Babuyanes and Northern Luzon before the arrival of the Europeans in Batanes. It is likely that it was from such trade relations that non-locally produced jars were entered in the islands, some of which eventually found their way in some burial site. The pre-Hispanic Ivatan buried his dead in a large earthern jar. This custom may have lasted until as late as the 18th century. Their burial jars called Padapaday are over 30 inches in diameter. The livelihood of this jar burial people was farming, fishing and the raising of pigs and goats during the late 17th century when the Europeans set foot in Batanes. They were already well-acquainted with the use of iron tools: they had forges for smithing what iron came their way, and they had boats, too. EARLY WESTERN CONTACT: 1686-1783 The first European on record to set foot on the islands was Fr. Mateo Gonzalez, O.P. He was then the vicar of the mission of Sta. Ursula in Babuyanes north of Luzon . The Ivatan was a farmer and a fisherman , who fed largely on yam and camote, some fish, and a variety of fruits from his farm tended mostly by women while he himself and his sons went out fishing. He built boats, and made with ingenuity what he lacked in tools. He had a few wooden iron equipment some for his occupation and some for his self-defense. His farms were occasionally raveaged by locusts and typhoons. He fought back against locusts by hunting them for food. He raised goats and pigs to supplement his agariculture and fishing. Being without rice and corn, he raises only a very limited number of chicken. For his drink, he cultivated sugarcane and brewed wine out of it. With this he was generous to strangers. He was dressed scantily from cloth he must have woven from little cotton that he grew on his farm. He valued gold and wore it as earrings, or used it as currency i his small commercial transactions. He also used it for buying iron. He was civil and had some law to govern social conduct. An organized political strcuture in his community was not very clear, although he probably had. His religious life was equally undefined if at all. He built his house on hilltops and hillsides - with fortifications. In appearance he was calm, with bronze complexion, and kept his hair short. The Dominican Provincial Chapter of 1720 authorized Fr. Juan Bel and six others for a mission in Batanes. When they arrived in Batanes, they were welcomed with gifts of pigs and goats and bananas. When these gifts were refused, the Ivatans took the refusal as an insult. They were also offered basi, tobacco and buyo. The food of the people consisted of camote, yam and gabi. (Fr. Bel left for posterity some pieces of information and his impressions during his subsequent trip to the islands. The people were often hungry. They did some small business selling some fish and cotton. The people appeared to be very peaceful, somewhat of the timid side. They had no idols, but had some "vain observances." They had prayers and made offerings to spirits when they got sick. They believed in the immortality of the soul. They had aniteras who taught the people that the souls of the rulers and those of hig social rank went to heaven when they died. It was there where they rested in presence of the Creator. But the souls of the common people were not admitted into heaven, and they remained in the air to wander. Illness was believed to be from the devil, and when they got sick, they placed a bolo and a sharpened wood at the head of the sick man's bed. On October 20, 1721 , the king of Spain sent orders to the Royal Audiencia in Manila to send him detailed report concerning Batanes because of a standing position by the Dominicans of the province of the most Holy Rosary that the Ivatans be transferred to Calayan. On March 14, 1728 , the king of Spain issued the Royal Cedula for the transfer of the Ivatans from Batanes to Calayan in recognition of the reports that the Ivatans were suffering from extreme destitution material and spiritual. The cedula exempted the Ivatans from paying tributes and from rendering personal services for thirty years in accordance with the request of the Dominican missionaries of the province of the Most Holy Rosary. Fr. Amado believed the Ivatans "timid and faint-hearted." and should be treated with great prudence. But he also felt that should force be used to get them out of their homeland, they might resist force: and if they were overcome, bringing them to Calayan would do them no good since they could very well run away "to take refuge and hide where only dogs could track them down." He proposed that should translation get through, the Ivatans should be provided with vital supplies for an indefinite time and until they could support themselves from the produce of their farms in Calayan. About 1769, Don Mathias Suarez Vezino landed in Batanes and was there for over a month and a half. He reported seeing abundant fruits, gold of good quality, and copper. He saw cloth made from cotton, and that there was a kind of valuable fiber there, probably what the natives call hasu, which was used by the Ivatans for making nets, ropes, and other necessities. He estimated tne population to be about 50,000. In March 1770, Joaquin Melgareho, a trader from Cagayan, left on board a small champan loaded with 500 cavans of rice for Batanes; and in two days or so, he landed in Batanes. He showed them a few commodities such as beads, carabao hide, and the like the Ivatans were willing to trade some local products: goats, pigs, very fine cotton, G-strings, tapis for women, fishing nets, spools of thread. The natives also brought gold of 20 carats, and coarse sotton cloth. The bartering went on until all of Melgarejo's goods were gone. Melgarejo noted that hteir houses were small and roofed with cogoc, that they had two doors but no windows, that there were no divisions of the house into rooms, thate there were boards used for sleeping, that there was some sort of chimney where light came in. The walls of the houses were made of stones, big and small, which had been arranged one on top of the other. At a wedding, he observed that during the ceremony, four or five pieces of gold were given as dowry to the bride whoo gave these to her father. Some Chinese jars filled with sugarcane were placed on the middle of the floor and dancing took place around them. The dance looked strange to him for the dancers "raised their hands and feet skywards in strange gestures." The celebration lasted four or five days. At a funeral, he saw the father of the dead man wailing and going through extravagant signs of mourning. The earrings of the dead were taken away, but some tabacco was placed in his G-string, and along with him were buried his plates, his cooking pots, his jar. Then the father of the dead man drank himself into stupor. After 15 days, a goat was killed and distributed to the relatives of the dead man who in turn were to offer it to the dead. This time, the father of the dead did not take part. Melgarejo tried to find out from the natives where they believed the dead had gone. In answer someone pointed heavenward. The gold ornaments which the Ivatans used appeared ot Melgarejo to have been obtained from gold-panning at the foot of the mountains. He saw an abundance of gold ornaments among the natives. The farm products were cotton, fibers for making nets, camote, gabi, ubi, sugarcane wine. They had lots of cogon in the fields, cogon being the roofing material for their houses. On January 31, 1781, Josef de Huelva y Melgarejo, drawing information provided him by the navigator Mtias Suarez and the trader Joaquim Melgarejo wrote whis report on Batanes geography and people. The Ivatans, he reported, built in small houses built close to one another "like the Chinese houses at the Parian." They were built very low because of earthquakes and typhoons, and the entrances were so low it was necessary to crawl. They were roofed with cogon. The farms were planted with "yam, gabi, camote, sugarcane and some barona and tobacco." He noted that there was too little land for rice. There were enclosures close to their houses where they raised pigs. They raised chicken, goats; they also had some dogs and cats. Huelva considered the Ivatan costumes of the time "indecent." The men wlaked around naked except for their G-strings; and the women wore a piece of cloth which covered only from the waist down to the knee. The cloth was used by the women was made of cotton and undyed. They were ostentatious of whatever they had, including lard, for their social position depended largely on their wealth. Huelva noted that the son of a rich man who became impoverished lost the respect of the comminity. They got drink with their palek (sugacane wine), and they were filthy in their persons. The men cut their hair short, but the women kept their hair long and twisted into a bun on their heads. they were superstitious, and in the administration of justice very severe: even for a light crime the punishment was being buried alive. The islands were described as having no real parts. But there were small beaches on which the natives had their small boats for safety after coming from the sea. Itbayat was mentioned as having no port nor place for anchorage but it was a productive land, and was reported to have about seven communities. It produced plenty of cotton for weaving. Preparatory to the final annexation of Batanes to the Spanish dominion, some formatlities had to be made. The people were to be asked whether or not they were willing to accept the sovereignty of the Spanish king and to be his loyal subjects. For this purpose, Don Dionisio de los Reyes and a crew under his command left Appari on May 30, 1782 . they landed in Batanes on June 1, 1782 at the port of Mahatao where they assembled the chieftains of the Ivatans. It was there that de los Reyes formally presented to the people the offer of the Spanish king to take them under his lordship and protection, with the promise of giving them only temporal but especially well-being. Whether the natives understood perfectly the contents of the royal message or not is another question, but the records say that they accepted the royal offer enthusiastically. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Your article brings to mind the idea that there is a correlation between poverty in developing nations and the geographic latitudes that they belong to, that temperate climates fare better economically than tropical ones. Batanes seems to bare this truth. I have always found it amusing that one of our most progressive and well run local government units (in Batanes) is also one so detached from our political mainland. Now, to rub salt into the festering wound of Philippine governance, it seems that this literal island of progressiveness may not belong to the Philippines at all but rather to a truly progressive northern neighbor Taiwan . It figures. It�s all against us, isn�t it? Geographical location, over educated but morally ill equipped leaders, and a population whose mass indication of righteous indignation finds convenient expression only when the weather is good and there�s no shopping to be done. It been a looong day. Thank god for San Miguel beer. Jaime Garchitorena, [email protected], Feb. 01, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, My reaction will be similar to my comment in that Navy forum. I just hope that the illustrious Prof Chen Hurng-yu of the National Chengchi University, a prolific analyst and writer and one of the foremost experts on the Taiwan-China problem, had misread some of his sources. As far as I remember from practical experience, there has been no conflict whatsoever between Taiwan and the Philippines about points from Y�Ami down to Batan belonging to Taiwan, even when ROC represented China in international relations. We had good relations with the government even when its foreign affairs were not through the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office but an official diplomatic legation, and no boundary issue had ever been discussed. I can only assume that if ever such arose, it was a decided matter during the American administration and that when we became independent on July 4, 1946, that matter was closed. The first time I was in the area was on board the USS Boyd (DD544) on summer training as a First Class midshipman with DESRON 15, which provided destroyers and cruisers for the Formosa Patrol as we called it 1959. I would occasionally see Y�Ami Island (identified within the established treaty limits) but the Boyd never entered Philippine territory, as its area of operation was the Taiwan Strait between the mainland and Taiwan, to keep both sides from invading the other. In relative terms, ROC and PRC military power were almost at par at the time. I visited Batan Island as CO, RPS Capiz (PS27) in the summer of 1972 with a PC intelligence team searching for a reported gunrunning boat bringing Chinese firearms for the NPA. We couldn�t find the quarry and abandoned search after a week when we were asked to check on something in Masbate (dropping the PC team at Mariveles on the way). Two weeks later the Karagatan grounded in Digoyo Point, and the rest is history. It was good intel, after all. I was later assigned on the Pacific coast patrol (from Isabela to Sorsogon) and supporting the army and PC troops in Isabela, Quezon and the Bicol region (TF Isarog) as CO of RPS Iloilo (PS32) and after the declaration of martial law, the RPS Cebu (PS28). Later twice I visited Batanes, once as PCG Commandant in 1992 (We improved the PCG Station in Basco, and flew in to check) and again as Philippine Ports Authority GM in 1996 or 1997, in preparation of a plan to improve the Batan wharf. Gov Castillejos on the latter visit drove my party around the island on his pick up (I revisited the abandoned Loran Station also) and told me about his experiences before World War II with workers hired by the Japanese contractor to build the coastal road, but more so noting that the Japanese engineers were very busy photographing places and making the maps more accurate. Now we know why, Batan was the first island invaded in 1941, because of the presence of the airstip. The so-called issue on �navigational practice� is Greek to me. Ships and craft pass anywhere in the straits between Taiwan and the Philippines in the exercise of innocent passage, any direction. Maybe he�s talking about pre-US colonial period when effect of current and wind was more acute for sailing vessels but I cannot see how the Kurosho can differ much between the Balintang and Bashi channels. The latest diplomatic development in support of the defined treaty limit that I know was the 1993 negotiation for Taiwanese fishing sea lanes between Taiwan and the Philippines during the Aquino administration. I was a member of the Philippine panel, and there was no question on where the territorial limit ended. Carlos �Chuck� Agustin, [email protected], Feb. 01, 2007 President, National Defense College of the Philippines wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya: Please find enclosed a reaction to your Jan 30 article on the Batanes Islands . I hope you publish it, as the Ivatans and many people who have been working hard to combat Taiwanese poaching in our northern waters, deserve no less. Jay L Batongbacal, [email protected], Feb. 03, 2007 02 February 2007 Dear Mr. Abaya: This is with reference to your article of 31 January 2007 , entitled �Batanes is Taiwanese?� which reproduces a purported article by a Taiwanese academic, Mr. Chen Hurng-yu, claiming that the Batanes Islands is historically part of the territory of Taiwan . To sum up, his argument is based on (1) the assumption that, as of 1895, Batanes was part of Taiwan and placed under Japanese sovereignty when the latter was invaded, (2) his interpretation of the ambiguity contained in Article III of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 which refers to a line running east to west �along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude� and �through the navigable channel of Bashi,� from which he surmises that Batanes was Taiwanese territory invaded by the United States in 1900 and unilaterally taken by the Philippines in 1961 with the enactment of Republic Act No. 3046. Please allow me to make some clarifications. His primary assumption that Batanes Islands , in 1895 was part of Taiwan and never part of the Philippine Islands under Spain , is belied by the historical record. Spanish Dominican missionaries set foot on the Islands as early as the 1686, and the Islands were formally annexed by the King of Spain in 1783. Throughout the 17th to the 19th century, Spain exercised exclusive acts of sovereignty, including the establishment of the organs of government and exercise of taxation, over the Batanes Islands , without any interference or interruption by the Japanese or any other sovereign power. In spite of the difficulties posed by its location, it was only the Spanish colonial administration and the Roman Catholic Church (through the Dominicans) who maintained trade and administrative links with the Batanes Islands for over 3 centuries. Spanish sovereignty was challenged several times only by local Ivatan chiefs, and in 1898, the Katipunan even sent a military force to the islands as part of the Philippine Revolution. There can be no question that as of 1895 (Mr. Chen�s reckoning point) the Batanes was part of the Philippines , which was seeking independence from Spanish colonial rule. When the Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States under the Treaty of Paris of 1898, the issue of the appropriate means of describing the Philippines posed a difficulty for the negotiators. To list over 7,000 islands in the document of cession was impractical, especially since even up to that time, Spain had not undertaken a complete and comprehensive survey of the archipelago (this was only begun under American rule). Thus, the Treaty of Paris resorted to the use of the lines described in Article III, which drew an irregular polygon around the main islands of the Philippine Archipelago. While it is true that the wording of Article III presented an apparent inconsistency in its description of the northern line, two years later, the Treaty Between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America for the Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines was negotiated and executed between the parties specifically �to remove any ground of misunderstanding growing out of the interpretation of Article III of the Treaty of Paris.� This is known as the Treaty of Washington of 1900. The sole article states clearly that �Spain relinquishes to the United States all title and claim of title, which she may have had at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace of Paris, to any and all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, lying outside of the lines described in Article III of that Treaty and particularly to the islands of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, and agrees that all such islands shall be comprehended in the cession of the Archipelago as fully as if they had been expressly included within those lines.� The contracting parties recognized that the islands of the Philippines are not limited only to those inside the Treaty of Paris lines, and expressly mentioned those islands groups to remove any doubt. At the time, the Batanes Islands were among the islands of Cagayan province. This subsequent treaty clarifying Article III of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 removes any doubt as to whether Spain considered Batanes Islands as part of the Philippine Archipelago, and whether it was likewise ceded to the United States, and later on was a part of the Philippines when it formally attained independence in 1946. Contrary to Mr. Chen�s claim that the Treaty of Paris of 1898 confirmed that the Batanes Islands were part of Taiwan , in light of the subsequent Treaty of Washington of 1900, the Batanes Islands were in fact affirmed to be part of the Philippines . Mr. Chen�s argument that the proper interpretation of Article III with respect to the location of the northern line should be that it referred to the 20th parallel south of the Batanes Islands and now known as the Balintang Channel, based on navigation practices, is likewise questionable. Under the long accepted rules of interpretation of treaties, which have been codified in the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, in case of ambiguities, the terms of a treaty are to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with their natural and ordinary meaning, and the subsequent practice of the parties in the application of the treaty may establish their understanding regarding its interpretation. The emphasis on the �natural and ordinary meaning� implies that the usage of technical terms are to be avoided unless it is clearly and expressly made so by the parties. The reference to the Bashi channel, which expresses a natural and ordinary meaning, prevails over the concurrent reference to the 20th parallel, which renders Article III ambiguous because it is a technical term that is not naturally and ordinarily used. Furthermore, we must also consider that at the time, mapping and charting were still prone to errors, and it would not be surprising if there was an error in the precise location of the Batanes Islands in relation to the 20th parallel. What is important, however, is that the Bashi channel was clearly identified as the location of the dividing line. Thus, even without the Treaty of Washington of 1900, the Batanes Islands is still included within the Philippine Archipelago. In addition, the subsequent practice of the United States, which included the establishment of schools, weather stations, navigational aids, and the peaceful government of the Batanes Islands, without any protest or objection from Japan, in the years that followed totally debunks any possible claim that the Batanes could have ever been considered part of Taiwan by the Japanese. If Japan did indeed consider the Batanes as part of Taiwan , then it should have filed a diplomatic protest, or even gone to war with the United States at the time. They did not. In fact, the Imperial Japanese Army never even set foot on the Batanes Islands until December 1941 when they began their invasion of the Philippines . Mr. Chen�s reliance on supposed Japanese sovereignty over the Batanes Islands as an extension of Taiwan is therefore completely misplaced. With these historical facts, the claim that the Philippines unilaterally extended its northern borders in 1961 through Republic Act No. 3046 to illegally encompass the Batanes Islands is obviously false. The Philippine Baselines Law, as it is known, drew the baselines of the territorial sea around the undisputed sovereign territories of the Philippines , which rightfully included the Batanes Islands to the north. Prior to this, these sovereign territories were described under the 1935 Constitution and the Jones Law. With these facts, Mr. Chen, who is cited as a history professor, cannot claim that �the legitimacy of the Philippine occupation of the Batan Islands is questionable.� If he is really an academic, he is willfully misrepresenting the past using selective information and pure speculation, leading to unfounded conclusions. As a lawyer specializing in international marine policy and who has worked with various government agencies on issues relating to our national territory and marine resources, I am very concerned about this kind of misinformation being disseminated at this time. It�s not fair to ask your readers to �read and judge for yourself� without providing adequate and correct information. The people of Batanes and concerned government agencies have noted the increasing frequency of poaching by Taiwanese fishing vessels deep in our territorial waters and even our nearshore coastal areas. Recently it�s not only fish that are being taken, there have even been reports of the illegal harvesting of timber. We should not allow such propaganda to justify these illegal incursions into our territory and outright theft of our natural resources. Jay L. Batongbacal U.P. Law 1991 [email protected] MY REPLY. I asked readers to �read and judge for yourself� because my space in the newspaper is limited. There was no room in that issue for any serious counter-arguments, which the readers above have provided. One point that my readers have not mentioned, and which you, as an expert in international law, are probably better equipped to verify, is this. I recall from a course I took on the History of Modern Japan that Formosa was ceded by China to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895. Did this treaty include the Batanes Islands or not? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr Abaya......................just let Batanes be............ Your article might spark yet another international (or maybe regional) problem, which at this time {as you know}, we cannot afford to even think about! Thank you very much. Ed Valenciano, [email protected], Feb. 05, 2007 MY REPLY. That article was not mine. It was written entirely by this Taiwanese professor and was emailed to me by someone in the Philippine Navy. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |