 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Spratlys Treason?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written March 10, 2008 For the Standard Today, March 11 issue The dust has not yet settled on the ZTE broadband scandal, and another one seems to be brewing around another, potentially damaging (to President Arroyo) issue. This has to do with her trip to China in late 2004, apparently to consumate or promote a deal between the national oil companies of China and the Philippines for the joint seismic survey of a wide swathe of ocean off the coast of Palawan, that would include the islets and reefs in the Spratlys claimed by the Philippines, and that abuts the Malampaya oil- and gas-producing region. The controversy was sparked by a recent article in the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) written by Bernard Wain, identified as a writer-resident in the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore and a former editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal. (About two years ago, when in one of my articles I referred to �the now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review,� I received a rejoinder from Hugh Restall in Hong Kong , who identified himself as its editor, who said that the FEER was not defunct; it had merely changed from a weekly to a monthly. And he airmailed to me four of FEER�s recent issues. As the new FEER has few or no ads, we can conclude that it must be receiving a subsidy from some organization in order to remain in print.) In his article on the Spratlys, Wain accuses the Philippines of breaking the solidarity that ASEAN had agreed upon when dealing with China . Apparently, President Arroyo did not consult with the other ASEAN countries, nor even with her own foreign ministry, but, Wain suggests, was influenced solely by �business� interests. The joint seismic survey contract was signed on September 1, 2004. Within six, months, Vietnam (which also claims some islets and reefs in the region) joined the agreement, and the tri-partite document was signed on March 14, 2005. According to Wain, the Philippines allowed to be included in this agreement parts of its own continental shelf that are not even being claimed by China or Vietnam . If true, this is a sell-out on the part of President Arroyo that some critics are now claiming was an act of treason. Why would President Arroyo do such a treasonous act? Wrote Wain: �The Philippines , militarily weak and lagging economically, had opted for Chinese favors at the expense of ASEAN political solidarity.� At the expense of its own sovereignty, too, it must be said, if it is true that the deal includes Philippine territorial waters not even claimed by China or Vietnam . What Chinese favors? Ricky Carandang, of ANC and The Correspondents, writes that �After the oil agreement, China committed $2 billion a year in official development aid (ODA) until the year 2010. Sources tell me that the Spratlys deal was a pre-condition to the ODA�� The imputation is that President Arroyo has sold out Philippine sovereignty to the Chinese for ODA totaling $8 billion. Chinese ODA is not subject to the same transparency, bidding and documentation requirements as ODA from Japan , the US and Europe , and, writes Carandang, is �good for Arroyo officials with sticky fingers.� The ZTE scandal seems to show what �sticky fingers� are all about. President Arroyo defends it as strictly a commercial venture between the three national oil companies that does not change the sovereignty claims of the three countries involved. Says she: �It is a historic diplomatic breakthrough for peace and stability in the region.� But details of the agreement are said to be unknown � is the document, mysteriously, missing or stolen again, like the ZTE and some other contracts with the Chinese? The point I would like to raise is: The original contract with the Chinese was signed on Sept. 01, 2004. Why is this issue being raised, at least in the Philippines , only now? In my article Replacing Gloria of June 14, 2005 (and in subsequent articles) http://www.geocities.com/dapat_tapatt/replacinggma.html I wrote that the neo-cons in Washington DC were scheming to remove President Arroyo from power because of three perceived sins: a) she withdrew from the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq in July 2004; b) she signed a deal with the Chinese for joint exploration for oil in the Spratlys, in September 2004; and c) she failed to dismantle the Jemaah Islamiyah training camps in Mindanao. In my article Uncle Dick and Ate Glo of Jan. 13, 2006: http://www.geocities.com/dapat_tapatt/uncledickandglo.html I wrote that �By signing an agreement with the Chinese for the joint exploration for oil in the Spratlys, apparently without informing the Americans beforehand, President Arroyo also undercut the forward strategy of the neo-cons (who are led by VP Dick Cheney) who see China as the US � next strategic enemy. If there is oil under the Spratlys, the Americans want it for themselves. Or, at the very least, they want to deny it to Beijing . �President Arroyo has in effect given it to the Chinese since, in this joint venture, the Philippines is only a junior partner, not having the money or the technology for such a high-tech enterprise�.� It is highly significant that on October 07, 2004, a little over a month after the signing of the joint maritime seismic contract, President Arroyo was roundly criticized by the Heritage Foundation, one of the three think tanks that help formulate policies for VP Dick Cheney�s neo-con cabal in Washington DC .. (The others are the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute.) Wrote Dana R. Dillon, senior policy analyst of Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) in October 2004: : �President Arroyo has acceded to China �s expansionist plans�At this point, she must be considered the weakest leader in the region�..She�s an equal opportunity weakling. In recent days she traveled to Beijing to sign an agreement with China to jointly explore for oil and gas inside the Philippine maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea �.President Arroyo would rather appease than confront�..� After this scathing article came out, the Americans started to move against her, using the services of Fil-Am Marine Sgt., Leandro Aragoncillo, formerly of the FBI and later in the White House staff of Dick Cheney, and the �Hello Garci� tape that was made public in July 2005. (Aragoncillo later turned out to be a double agent and is now serving a 10-year sentence in federal prison for spying for foreign, i.e. Filipino, principals.) But President Arroyo managed to survive all this, thanks to the life-saver thrown to her by Fidel Ramos. The sudden revival of the Spratlys issue may be a second attempt by the Americans to unseat her, cloaked, for public consumption in the Philippines , with allegations of treason. Abangan. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot.com.. NOTE: Transmission to yahoo.com and mydestiny.net addresses is sometimes delayed or blocked by the servers for one reason or other. If you are experiencing these delays and blockings, we suggest you move to a hotmail or a gmail address. To subscribe, send a blank emil with the subject heading Subscribe. To Unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Spratlys Treason?� � Manila �s Bungle in the South China Sea � Dear Mr. Abaya, Regarding your column, I�d like to clarify that the Far Eastern Economic Review is owned by Dow Jones, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal. It is a commercial publication, and a profitable one � it is not subsidized by any institution. Our revenue is derived mainly from subscriptions, which are US$100 per year. I would appreciate if you could clarify this. Please feel free to contact me in future if you wish to verify any facts about the Review before publication. Hugo Restall, (by email), Hong Kong , March 11, 2008 Editor, Far Eastern Economic Review wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I agree with Tony Abaya that the timing on this issue is very suspicious - you should all read a new book (can't remember the title but saw it last week in Power Books Alabang) on the overthrow in 1952 of the democratically elected President of Iran who was going to nationalize the Iranian oil industry - thus the Western powers blackened his image (through the press, etc.) to facilitate the people accepting his overthrow and replacement by the Shah. In fact, one thesis of the book is that the Middle East tensions were aggravated by such overthrow. Ruy Moreno , (by email), March 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Just before the ZTE deal became a full-blown �scandal� (as the grandstanding opposition and readership hungry media wanted it to be), I read in an article (I think it was yours) regarding a third player in the broadband deal, supposedly an American company, with none other but the American ambassador lobbying for them. Of course, it is no secret that the Americans were dismayed when PGMA signed the ZTE contact, and it is also no secret that the Americans are pleased that the contract was �cancelled�.(Not my article.. ACA) You�re right in saying that the Americans are alarmed with PGMA�s penchant of dealing with the Chinese. If I were to spin the conspiracy theory, the Americans are exposing this deal as an �act of treason� just to remind PGMA that they won�t very easily allow China to influence the Philippines . Alas and aluck, weak Philippines is now in the center stage of a power struggle between these two superpowers. If only our brilliant senators will stop their grandstanding activities and get down to work on foreign policy. Will Jamby Madrigal take charge? Thanks again and more power. Bong L. Alba, (by email), March 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, I have opted not to make comments on previous articles because I am so sick of all the grafts and corruption. I cannot imagine how Filipinos feel and how hopeless they are. Frankly I have no stake in the country other than my love of my old motherland. But I care and so are all the expatriates. The larger question is this. Why is GMA able to do these things freely without the public knowledge? Where may I ask are the tutas working with her who should be looking after the interest of the country and people and who knew about the signing off of the Spratly's interest? Who are advising her? The Lozadas, Neris and others. were doing the same thing; kept mum by the money they received and living the good life in the corridors of power.. They only cried fowl when their hands were caught in the cookie jar. And they want us to believe they have clean hands? What the Philippines sadly and gravely lacks is the necessary check and balance practiced by most countries governments.. Everyone else in the government is corruptible with the sound of money. Filipinos never question why so and so suddenly become rich regardless of the source. All they see or acknowledge is the glitter of wealth and the power that comes with having money.. What does this tell you about ethics, about right and wrong? Is there truly a propensity to be dishonest while the rest of the populace watch in acceptance? The time and the hour to revolt is now. People take the stand to free the country and get rid of THE PLUNDERERS GMA,HER HUSBAND AND HER TUTAS. NO NEED TO JUSTIFY YOUR ACTION. The rest of the world would honor you for taking charge and retaking of your country. GO MAKE THE CHANGE. Having said all of the above my inner peaceful voice agrees and reassures me it is the right thing to do. Oscar Apostol, (by email), Roseville , CA , March 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir Tony, The moment you allow a foreign country to explore the natural resources of the Philippines , you also gave them (other countries) the signal that there is a very big possibility that they can gain access to our richness. Patriotism and nationalism, what's left for us to be proud of? chk chk chk Number 1 most corrupt country in Asia and now another controversy that appears to be an outright betrayal of our country's future. If this is true, the current administration will have a big problem pleasing its military, because culturally the military will never accept traitors. May God's hands touch the hearts of all those people who are in power that they make decisions that are favorable for the Country and not for their own selfish desires. . Vonne Villanueva, (by email), March 11, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr Abaya, I do not know much about the Philippine government and President Arroyo, but I am learning. I have been following the news in Manila as I am moving there in May. While I see problems in your leadership, they are similar to that in ours, only, ours are more subtle and secretive, with spin to make us look good. Your government has much to learn in that respect. I hope it takes them a very long time. I am glad to see someone standing up to the Bush/Cheney Big Oil machine. What the Philippines does with their natural resources belongs to the Filipinos, not the Americans. The Chinese are going to have control of the oil in the South China Sea one way or another and it is smart, I think, to do it diplomatically, not militarily. America is an Empire in decline, China is waking up to a new life, and will roll over anyone that opposes her. While you President should have consulted others, perhaps she knew that the US would lean on everyone to prevent anything that was not positive for the US . We would have taken control of Filipino oil and dribbled out a minimum allotment to the Philippines . We are a greedy, spoiled country, going into the economic trash bin. It is only a matter of time until China is a major power in the world. Better to be a friend than an enemy. Sorry, I had to vent when I saw this article. I am a 14th.generation American, but, I am no longer proud of what we are doing in the name of Democracy. Bill Tritt, (by email), Philadelphia, PA, March 12, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Root cause of the Philippine problems in the Spratlys The root cause of the problems the Philippines is having in the Spratlys can be traced to the Philippine Senate when they kicked out the American bases of Subic and Clark . The 12 senators were: Senate President Jovito Salonga and Senators Agapito "Butz" Aquino, Juan Ponce Enrile, Joseph Estrada, Teofisto Guingona Jr., Sotero Laurel, Ernesto Maceda, Orlando Mercado, Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Rene Saguisag, Victor Ziga and Wigberto Ta�ada. I have no problem with those 12 senators booting out the American bases, but they should have increased the AFP military budget to compensate for the withdrawal of the American defense umbrella in the Philippines . More specifically, those 12 senators should have allocated money to buy enough warships and jet fighters to deter the expansionism of China . Due to these 12 senators, the Americans pulled out in 1991 and with a weak Philippine armed forces, the Chinese, sure enough, seized Mischief reef four years later in 1995. The only real alibi these senators could give was, well, we are a poor country and we cannot afford those armaments. If that was the case, then the more reason they should not have abruptly kicked-out the American bases. These 12 senators should have implemented a gradual phase-out plan complemented by a real strengthening of the Philippine military. These are the historical facts, and 17 years later, fast-forward to 2008, what has the Philippine Senate done for the Armed Forces? Very laughable, the Philippine Navy still makes do with World War 2 ships and the Philippine Air Force has no more jet fighters. It is true that the Philippine economy has improved a lot, thanks to those same 12 senators since one reason for the economic boom is the success of export zones in Subic and Clark, but why is it that the Senate has not allocated enough money for the armaments of the Philippine armed forces to protect and build upon our current economic success. Just a few surgical air or naval strikes by the enemy at Malamapaya gas field or at the Subic Export zones will definitely knock-out all our hard-won economic gains. So who are the traitors now? If something bad happens to our armed forces in the Spratlys such as a massacre of our sailors and airmen in Pag-asa island or in Palawan , you know very well who to blame. History will judge them harshly. These 12 senators better pray that nothing bad happens in the Spratlys, otherwise their family names will forever be judged harshly by historians and the Filipino people. [email protected], March 12, 2008 Philippine Navy wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Time and again, people are told and made to believe, that we have a government composed of three equal branches � the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. We are further taught that no particular branch has an edge over the others. Conversely, no branch is disadvantaged by the others. They are co-equal in dispensing their respective functions of serving the Filipino people, and they mutually respect and support one another. We hold this doctrine sacred from generation to generation. But basing on what we are experiencing right now, it seems that that is no longer the case. Indications point to the fact that we have a very powerful executive on the one hand, and a seemingly weak legislative and judiciary on the other hand. As we are assailed by waves and waves of scandals, most of them allegedly emanating from people associated with the executive branch, the divided legislature is just contented in making noises and the judiciary is just waiting silently in the sidelines. We have an executive that is making and enforcing its own laws while accused to be violating established ones. We have a divided legislative whose lower house doesn�t say anything about significant issues. Only the Senate remains steadfast in ferreting out the truth. In addition, notice the vicious cycle that we are experiencing. The executive branch is accused of committing a scam (infrastructure scam, fertilizer scam, election scam, broadband scam, bribery scam and the simmering Spratly issue). The legislative (Senate) will conduct an investigation. Some of the legislators will seriously look to the bottom of things but some will just look the other way. Worse, some are even observed to cover up the wrongdoing resulting in obfuscation. When the judiciary steps in to declare some of the executive actions as unconstitutional, what happens next? No one is there to enforce its ruling. And the process is repeated all over again, to the disadvantage of the common taxpayers. Clearly, what we have in this equation is check but no balance. But does it have to be this way? Can�t we return to the sacredness, moral ascendancy and integrity of government? Can we still get rid of the �scamdalous� image generated by repugnant actions of a few bad eggs in one part of the government? Are the abuses of one part of the body to be tolerated to the detriment of the whole body? In Matthew 18:8-9 Jesus Christ said, �If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell�. Rev. Ronny L.Luces (by email), Jaro, Iloilo , March 12, 2008 Associate minister, Jaro Evangelical Church, chair, advocacy committee, Convention Baptist Minister�s Association (CBMA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, The U.S. neo-conservatives are, indeed, making a big stink out of the Spratlys. The U.S. neo-cons are very jealous of China and, while trying to reach out with an olive branch, they always try to undermine this rising superpower. It is not only China that the U.S. tries to undermine. They also try to put down Russia and Iran , any country that harbors nationalistic sentiments and ambitions. This is why I believe that the U.S. conservative establishment will do everything in its power to halt the popular crusade of Barack Obama for the White House. The neo-cons may dislike John McCain, but he is a dyed-in-the-wool Hawk and he is much easier to deal with than a Barack Obama. Obama has signified intentions to dialogue with "rogue" countries like Iran . Obama has stressed diplomacy over unilateralism and brute force. Furthermore, Obama may not be as willing a puppet for Israel as McCain would be. The Jewish lobby will work full time against a Barack Presidency. In the end, the U.S. neo-cons work only for their own interests. The Philippines ' interests are not necessarily identical to the interests of the U.S. consevative establishment. Very truly yours, Juan Deiparine, (by email), Toril, Davao City , March 12, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya; You asked in your article that if this "treaty" was signed in 2004, why is it being questioned "only" now? There are more items that the Arroyo government did that needs questioning, not just this one. I would like to ask a question - why is this government shunning the Americans all of a sudden? If the things you mentioned are true - that PGMA turned more to the Chinese than the Americans, what triggered it? I am amazed at all the 'deals' with China and I totally agree with you that if it is true the Spratleys was given up for "future" deals under the guise of "assitance programs" - who benefits from the oil they will get from Spratleys? Of course - the Chinese, which irks the Americans no end. There are other oil exploration missions around the country that were given to the Chinese over the Americans and the ZTE scandal is just the tip of the iceberg from the looks of it. PGMA should have kept sovereign property and resources EXCLUSIVELY for the Filipinos and the Filipinos alone instead of letting other countries harvest our own natural resources and leave us broke and buying up our own resources. It�s a totally stupid set-up. a set up only an non-patriot would do and enter into. If she really wanted to raise this country to first-world standards - she would have taken in the technology that would help us process these resources WITHIN our own country and for Filipinos to harvest it, instead of the other way around. Treason is polite. Betrayal is the accurate term for what she did. As a woman, as a mother, what she did to this country is appalling. It�s like she will starve her own children just to satisfy guests. She will clean up the living room but keep her children in the dirty messed up bedroom, locked and out of sight. She will use the poor's need for basic services and use it for her advantage but the real services for the poor are nowhere in sight. There's nothing real internally, all pure 'press release' to better her image. And the worst thing of all - it is so simple to turn everything around and get into the good graces of the people she has been sworn to serve, protect and uplift. But I won't write it down because I'm just a mere housewife with no master's degree from any international university like her. So how will this revolve now? The masses are not going to be interested in all this conspiracy theory stories because the first agenda for the poor is to to try and survive for today. The middle class - although concerned - still struggle to survive and have enough for the next few months. I don't know what happened to her. I pity her because she will go down history as the most corrupt president this country has ever had, worst than Marcos. I firmly believe that. Because Marcos may have been corrupt but he had the better interests of the country at heart at the beginning. He wanted the Philippines to be SELF-SUFFICIENT and not depend on imports. I heard someone say that what it took Marcos to hoard in 20 years only took the current administration 3 years and with no socio-economic development to boot, poverty as bad as it can get and I don't understand how a leader with a (negative) 65% popularity in her own country could still have the nerve to show her face in public. It will take more than a miracle to oust the current administration and until money loses its shine and meaning to those who's souls are bought by current administration - it will not end and there will be ways and means to stay in power long after 2010. Deep regards and God bless. I would like to comment on the recent merger of the Lakas- Kampi parties. It is so reminiscent of the KBL vs Laban parties during the Marcos time. Is this current merger going to give way to a really solid opposition leaving this country with just two parties to look out for? Basically, maybe it would be good for the country to have just two parties. But I still have to wait for the opposition parties to do their own kind of merger and lets see who survives the 2010 elections.... if its clean. God bless you and regards, Jenny Aquino-Xavier, (by email), March 12, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Why is our President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo selling our and giving away the Philippines , its land, sea, territory and even the dignity and livelihood of its people to other nations? Where has patrimony and love of country gone with GMA administration? Why do the Filipinos allow her to do all these things. Her claim of improving economy is only among the oligarch business tycoons supporting her and her administration at the expense of the lowly Filipino masses. They say, we get what we deserve. Do we deserve to have a ruling president like GMA? Maybe yes Rex Rivera, (by email), March 13, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Tony, I joined a small group within the Former Senior Government Officials (FSGO) to look into the Spartlys issue. We had our first meeting last Tuesday and will hold our second meeting on March 25. There are very highly legal interpretations involved pertaining to the study being conducted. But why is it that the Philippines has not submitted our boundaries to the UN? The deadline for submission is May '09! Even the law defining our archipelagic boundary has been languishing in Congress for decades! Cesar Sarino, (by email), March 13, 2008 (Maybe because walang bubukol, Cesar. Tony) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir Tony, Much has been said about GMA's legitimacy or illegitimacy as President of the Republic due to alleged election irregularities in 2004 and the alleged corruption leading up to Malacanang due to the revelations of Mr Jun Lozada on the ZTE-NBN deal. Frankly, I am not convinced that these two issues alone --- no matter how damaging that left GMA embattled for the longest time --- are enough to cause her resignation or impeachment as President. I'm sure everyone will agree that every other (if not EVERY) President ever elected into office has resorted to cheating in any form. I'm not a fan but I believe only Erap can win an election without having to cheat for obvious reasons. I'm sure everyone will also agree that every other (again, if not EVERY) President made big money out of big government transactions by taking advantage of his/her office. So what makes GMA any different? The point is, whatever GMA did as President (cheat and make money) is not unique and does not necessarily make her "evil". Her every other predecessors have done these as well, albeit in varying degrees of treachery and greed. "Cheat and make money" simply is the norm in public office, and those legislators investigating both the "Hello Garci" and ZTE deal are not exempt, making them hypocrites. So, LEAVE HER ALONE, people! However, the article of Mr Bernard Wain regarding RP's bilateral agreement with China (which later became trilateral with the involvement of Vietnam) for a joint seismic exploration of potential resources of the Spratlys and which also included some portion of RP continental shelf (1/6 of the entire area) that is not even contested, left me in serious doubt whether GMA should continue in office. I agree with you that "this is a sell-out on the part of President Arroyo that some critics are now claiming was an act of treason", notwithstanding our obligation to ASEAN. Never mind legitimacy, graft and corruption, treason alone is serious enough an offense punishable by musketry (still?) (I sincerely hope so). I am in the armed service where "Patriotism" and "Treason" are words not taken lightly and why I have this perspective. If the deal was done some three and a half years ago, why didn't the Senate gang up on GMA then on account of treasonous acts? Perhaps trying to impeach a President for treason would not sell to the masa and would defeat the purpose of grandstanding. Baka langawin ang Senate investigation. With our cheap showbiz culture, the common tao has this penchant to devour scandals, the issue of treason is perhaps beyond their grasp and not scandalous enough for them. So why bother? With all his good intentions, Mr Lozada is not my kind of hero. My hero would be his counterpart in the Department of Energy/PNOC who would divulge the details of the deal on the seismic survey and what (how much) the treasonous "sell-out" was. More power to you sir. Joseph Cuison, (by email), Fort Bonifacio , Taguig City , March 14, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww NOTE: Because of limited space, this post may be truncated in acabaya.blogspot.com. It appears or will appear complete in www.tapatt.org wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Far Eastern Economic Review January/February 2008 Manila�s Bungle in the South China Sea by Barry Wain When Vietnamese students gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi last December to protest against China �s perceived bullying over disputed territory in the South China Sea, it signaled Hanoi �s intention to turn up the heat a bit. And Beijing reacted in kind; instead of downplaying the incident, a foreign ministry spokesman complained, � China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.� The bluster on both sides, while just a blip in this long-running feud, is a timely reminder that the South China Sea remains one of the region�s flashpoints. What most observers don�t realize is that in the last few years, regional cooperative efforts to coax Beijing into a more measured stance have been set back by one of the rival claimants to the islands. Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo�s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia . Within six months, however, Vietnam , the harshest critic, dropped its objections and joined the venture, which went ahead on a tripartite basis and shrouded in secrecy. In the absence of any progress towards solving complex territorial and jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea , the concept of joint development is resonating stronger than ever. The idea is fairly simple: Shelve sovereignty claims temporarily and establish joint development zones to share the ocean�s fish, hydrocarbon and other resources. The agreement between China , the Philippines and Vietnam , three of the six governments that have conflicting claims, is seen as a step in the right direction and a possible model for the future. But as details of the undertaking emerge, it is beginning to look like anything but the way to go. For a start, the Philippine government has broken ranks with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which was dealing with China as a bloc on the South China Sea issue. The Philippines also has made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China and Vietnam . Through its actions, Manila has given a certain legitimacy to China �s legally spurious �historic claim� to most of the South China Sea . Although the South China Sea has been relatively peaceful for the past decade, it remains one of East Asia �s potential flashpoints. The Paracel Islands in the northwest are claimed by China and Vietnam , while the Spratly Islands in the south are claimed in part or entirety by China , Taiwan , Vietnam , the Philippines , Malaysia and Brunei . All but Brunei , whose claim is limited to an exclusive economic zone and a continental shelf that overlap those of its neighbors, man military garrisons in the scattered islets, cays and rocks of the Spratlys. After extensive Chinese structures were discovered in 1995 on Mischief Reef, on the Philippine continental shelf and well within the Philippine 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, Asean persuaded Beijing to drop its resistance to the �internationalization� of the South China Sea issue. Instead of insisting on only bilateral discussions with claimant states, China agreed to deal with Asean as a group on the matter. Rodolfo Severino, a former secretary-general of Asean, has lauded �Asean solidarity and cooperation in a matter of vital security concern.� Asean and China , however, failed in their attempt to negotiate a code of conduct. In the �Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea ,� signed in 2002, they pledged to settle territorial disagreements peacefully and to exercise restraint in activities that could spark conflict. But the declaration is far from watertight. A political statement, not a legally binding treaty, it doesn�t specify the geographical scope and is, at best, an interim step. Since the issuance of the declaration, a tenuous stability has descended on the South China Sea . With Asean countries benefiting from China �s booming economy, boosted by a free-trade agreement, Southeast Asian political leaders are happy to forget about this particular set of problems that once bedeviled their relations with Beijing . Yet none of the multifaceted disputes has been resolved, and no mechanism exists to prevent or manage conflicts. With no plans to discuss even the sovereignty of contested islands, claimants now accept that it will be decades, perhaps generations, before the tangled claims are reconciled. Recent incidents and skirmishes are a sharp reminder of how dangerous the situation remains. In the middle of last year, Chinese naval vessels fired on Vietnamese fishing boats near the Paracels, killing one fisherman and wounding six others, while British giant BP halted work associated with a gas pipeline off the Vietnamese coast after a warning by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. In the past few months, Beijing and Hanoi have traded denunciations as the Chinese, in particular, maneuver to reinforce territorial claims. Vietnam protested when China conducted a large naval exercise around the Paracels in November. China �s decision in December to create an administrative center on Hainan to manage the Paracels, Spratlys and another archipelago, though symbolic, was regarded as particularly provocative by Hanoi . The Vietnamese authorities facilitated demonstrations outside the Chinese diplomatic missions in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to make known their displeasure. Friction can be expected to increase as the demand for energy by China and dynamic Southeast Asian economies rises and they intensify the search for oil and gas. While hydrocarbon reserves in the South China Sea are unproven, the belief that huge deposits exist keeps interest intense. As world oil prices hit record levels, the discovery of commercially viable reserves would raise tensions and �transform security circumstances� in the Spratlys, according to Ralf Emmers, an associate professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore . President Arroyo�s agreement with China for a joint seismic study was controversial in several respects. By not consulting other Asean members beforehand, the Philippines abandoned the collective stance that was key to the group�s success with China over the South China Sea . Ironically, it was Manila that first sought a united front and rallied Asean to confront China over its intrusion into Mischief Reef a decade earlier. Sold the idea by politicians with business links who have other deals going with the Chinese, Ms. Arroyo did not seek the views of her foreign ministry, Philippines officials say. By the time the foreign ministry heard about it and objected, it was too late, the officials say. Philippine diplomats might have been able to warn her that while joint development has been successfully implemented elsewhere, Beijing �s understanding of the concept is peculiarly Chinese. The only location that China is known to have nominated for joint development is a patch off the southern coast of Vietnam called Vanguard Bank, which is in Vietnamese waters where China has �no possibly valid claim,� as a study by a U.S. law firm put it. Beijing �s suggestion in the 1990s that it and Hanoi jointly develop Vanguard Bank was considered doubly outrageous because China insisted that it alone must retain sovereignty of the area. Also of no small consideration was the fact that such a bilateral deal would split Southeast Asia . The hollowness of China �s policy of joint development, loudly proclaimed for nearly 20 years, was confirmed long ago by Hasjim Djalal , Indonesia �s foremost authority on maritime affairs, when he headed a series of workshops on the South China Sea . Mr. Hasjim set out to test the concept of joint development, taking several years to identify an area in which each country would both relinquish and gain something in terms of its claims. In 1996, he designated an area of some thousands of square kilometers, amounting to a small opening in the middle of the South China Sea , which cut across the Spratlys and went beyond them. Joint development, unspecified, was to take place in the �hole,� with no participant having to formally abandon its claims. Beijing alone refused to further explore the doughnut proposal, as it was dubbed, complaining that the intended zone was in the area China claimed. Of course it was, that being the essence of the plan, without which it was difficult to imagine having joint development. China�s bottom line on joint development at that time: What is mine is mine and what is yours is ours. Beijing and Manila did not make public the text of their �Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company.� After the agreement was signed on Sept. 1, 2004, the Philippine government said the joint seismic study, lasting three years, would �gather and process data on stratigraphy, tectonics and structural fabric of the subsurface of the area.� Although the government said the undertaking �has no reference to petroleum exploration and production,� it was obvious that the survey was intended precisely to gauge prospects for oil and gas exploration and production. Nobody could think of an alternative explanation for seismic work, especially in the wake of year-earlier press reports that CNOOC and PNOC had signed a letter of intent to begin the search for oil and gas. Vietnam immediately voiced concern, declaring that the agreement, concluded without consultation, was not in keeping with the spirit of the 2002 Asean-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties. Hanoi �requested� Beijing and Manila disclose what they had agreed and called on other Asean members to join Vietnam in �strictly implementing� the declaration. After what Hanoi National University law lecturer Nguyen Hong Thao calls �six months of Vietnamese active struggle, supported by other countries,� state-owned PetroVietnam joined the China-Philippine pact. Vietnam�s inclusion in the modified and renamed �Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea,� signed on March 14, 2005, was scarcely a victory for consensus-building and voluntary restraint. The Philippines , militarily weak and lagging economically, had opted for Chinese favors at the expense of Asean political solidarity. In danger of being cut out, the Vietnamese joined, �seeking to make the best out of an unsatisfactory situation,� as Mr. Severino puts it. The transparency that Hanoi had demanded was still missing, with even the site of the proposed seismic study concealed. Now that the location is known, the details having leaked into research circles, the reasons for wanting to keep it under wraps are apparent: �Some would say it was a sell-out on the part of the Philippines ,� says Mark Valencia, an independent expert on the South China Sea . The designated zone, a vast swathe of ocean off Palawan in the southern Philippines , thrusts into the Spratlys and abuts Malampaya, a Philippine producing gas field. About one-sixth of the entire area, closest to the Philippine coastline, is outside the claims by China and Vietnam . Says Mr. Valencia : �Presumably for higher political purposes, the Philippines agreed to these joint surveys that include parts of its legal continental shelf that China and Vietnam don�t even claim.� Worse, by agreeing to joint surveying, Manila implicitly considers the Chinese and Vietnamese claims to have a legitimate basis, he says. In the case of Beijing , this has serious implications, since the broken, U-shaped line on Chinese maps, claiming almost the entire South China Sea on �historic� grounds, is nonsensical in international law. (Theoretically, Beijing might stake an alternative claim based on an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from nearby islets that it claims, but they would be restricted by similar claims by rivals.) Manila�s support for the Chinese �historic claim,� however indirect, weakens the positions of fellow Asean members Malaysia and Brunei, whose claimed areas are partly within the Chinese U-shaped line. It is a stunning about-face by Manila , which kicked up an international fuss in 1995 when the Chinese moved onto the submerged Mischief Reef on the same underlying �historic claim� to the area. Some commentators have hailed the tripartite seismic survey as a landmark event, echoing the upbeat interpretation put on it by the Philippines and China . The parties insist it is a strictly commercial venture by their national oil companies that does not change the sovereignty claims of the three countries involved. Ms. Arroyo calls it an �historic diplomatic breakthrough for peace and security in the region.� But that assessment is, at the very least, premature. Not only do the details of the three-way agreement remain unknown, but almost nothing has been disclosed about progress on the seismic study, which should be completed in the next few months. Much will depend on the results and what the parties do next. Already, according to regional officials, China has approached Malaysia and Brunei separately, suggesting similar joint ventures. If it is confirmed that China has split Asean and the Southeast Asian claimants and won the right to jointly develop areas of the South China Sea it covets only by virtue of its �historic claim,� Beijing will have scored a significant victory. Mr. Wain, writer-in-residence at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore , is a former editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOTE. Transmissions to yahoo.com and mydestiny.net addresses are sometimes blocked or delayed by the servers for one reason or another. If you are encountering these delays or blockings, we suggest you move to a hotmail or a gmail address. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |