| Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Kalayaan, Panatag & other disputed islands; Future conflict zones? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2005, 08:00 PM (156,113 Views) | |
| MSantor | Mar 10 2008, 06:48 AM Post #111 |
![]()
|
TOPPS, With all due respect, but doesn't the US Naval base at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba have both land and water mines protecting its approaches from attack by Cuban forces? And isn't the DMZ along the 38th-39th Parallel between the two Koreas still laced with hundreds, if not thousands of mines? The two Koreas may still be technically "at war" since the 1953 Armistice was nothing more than an armistice and not a formal peace treaty, but the United States is certainly not at war with Cuba, so the US is itself laying mines in areas that need defending, even with a country that it has "peacetime" relations with, even if the Cuban govt. and the US govt. don't have direct diplomatic links between each other. IIRC, there was a recent landmine ban treaty that was signed by many countries, except for the United States, Russia, and the two Koreas, among others. The RP govt. may be a signatory of the landmine treaty, but I don't think this applies to WATER MINES like the one scenario/proposal I suggested. However, I must concede to you that land mines could indeed be viewed as a belligerent weapon of only a nation at war, with regard/reference to the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the PN does not have a minelaying capability to speak of, IIRC. |
|
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford "Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton | |
![]() |
|
| Fmr TOPP Awardee 82'PNP | Mar 10 2008, 04:18 PM Post #112 |
|
PDFF Moderator
![]()
|
Well said MSantor, of course there are delicate and exceptional areas maintained by the US to be absolutely off limits specially directed to mortal foes like Cuba as a result of a near-showdown with the Soviets during the time of Kennedy. |
![]() "GUILTY CONSCIENCE NEEDS NO ACCUSER" | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 12 2008, 02:03 PM Post #113 |
![]()
|
Tightening noose Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 23:21:00 03/11/2008 MANILA, Philippines—As the story evolves, what are the issues emerging over the administration’s Spratlys policy—or the lack of it? The central issue remains the lack of a clear definition, because of a lack of transparency, of what exactly President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo set out to do concerning the Philippine claim to a portion of the Spratlys administratively considered part of Palawan province and which Filipinos call Kalayaan Islands. The story, as it is unfolding, involves two contracts. The first was signed between two government-owned or controlled corporations, involving seismic mapping of the South China Sea. The bilateral contract between Chinese and Philippine government-owned firms was later replaced by a trilateral contract, involving state-owned firms from China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The contracts specified secrecy, except for authorized entities of the three governments. The secrecy clause of the contracts is understandable in single-party states like China and Vietnam but brings up problems in a democracy like ours. That questionable aspect aside, the next question is whether the contracts were phrased in such a way as to give the administration a way of avoiding constitutionally-mandated disclosure requirements. Our Constitution authorizes the President to enter into deals involving mineral and petroleum resources, so long as the contracts that make them possible are transmitted to Congress. The administration argues that it has not had to do so, because the contracts only involve pre-exploration, and not even actual exploration, which is widely understood to be not just a prelude to, but an essential part of, of the actual exploitation of resources. However, it’s been pointed out by reporters investigating the story, particularly Ricky Carandang, that whether or not the administration calls seismic mapping a purely pre-exploratory activity and not part and parcel of the exploitation of resources, the reality is that as far as the oil and gas industry is concerned, seismic sounding is considered an integral part of the exploitation process. This is because the costs of seismic sounding is large enough to require some sort of a guarantee that those undertaking the activity are given first crack at exploiting whatever oil and gas reserves are identified by the seismic mapping. Simply put: seismic mapping is not pre-exploration, it is part of exploration, and exploration, in turn, is part of the exploitation of resources. So the allegation is that a false distinction has been made, to evade the Constitution’s requirements of presidential disclosure. Reporters are also zeroing in on the case of a company called Forum Energy that was given a license to explore for oil in Palawan, and which expected that it would then receive, pro forma, a service contract from the government once it found significant reserves. Instead, it was denied permission to drill—supposedly because our government faced pressure from China, emboldened by the Spratlys seismic mapping deal, which covered the part of Palawan that Forum Energy had previously been given permission to explore. Up against China, Forum Energy sold its rights to Monte Oro Resources and Energy, to which, in turn, a prominent businessman close to the President has been linked. In the end, as the story is unfolding, the Palace’s response has been true to form and damning: It has tried to escape the tightening noose by simply voiding, or at least postponing the deal, in the hope that cancellation prevents accountability. This evasiveness only raises the question of why the government said it was perfectly legal—and yet so easily abandoned it. Not to mention the emerging issues of missing maps, a Philippine territorial base line not clearly established, which only further suggests that the administration at the very least was mucking about with deals over areas our own government isn’t even sure is ours, or someone else’s, and the corresponding problem that in agreeing to certain things, it was wittingly or worse, unwittingly, harming our own economic interests. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 12 2008, 10:14 PM Post #114 |
![]()
|
China objection stalls OK of bill on RP territory--solon By Maila Ager INQUIRER.net First Posted 14:03:00 03/12/2008 MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) Strong opposition from the Chinese government, among others, has stalled the passage of a bill at the House of Representatives defining the country’s territory, including the disputed Spratly Islands. House Bill 3216 has been pending on the floor for third and final reading but its principal author, Cebu Representative Antonio Cuenco, who is also chairman of the foreign affairs committee, would like to defer its approval until the resumption of session on April 20. In a phone interview, Cuenco said he would file a motion on the floor this Wednesday, the last day of session before Congress goes on recess, to propose a “cooling off” period on discussions of this measure. Cuenco’s proposal came despite his committee’s decision to send back the bill to the body for further amendments. At a regular forum in Quezon City, Cuenco disclosed that the Chinese government expressed its objection to the bill in a “note verbale” dated December 2007 sent through the Philippine embassy in Beijing. “There was a note from the Chinese government relayed to our embassy in Beijing expressing their objection to the bill,” he said over the phone. “The Chinese are objecting to it. But I don’t consider it a pressure. It’s just normal. They have the right to object as we also have the right to object when there are things that would be detrimental to our interest,” he said. In its note verbale, the Chinese government expressed shock and grave concern over the committee’s approval of a then draft proposal defining the baseline of the country’s territory that would include the disputed Spratly Islands. China has been claiming “indisputable sovereignty” over NANSHA islands, including Scarborough Shoal and its adjacent waters. “China is shocked by and gravely concerned with this negative development. We request the clarification from the Philippine side,” it had said. Just to keep the friendship and stability in the disputed islands, the two countries had reached a consensus to refrain from “any action that would lead to complication and escalation of the situation,” it said. By signing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, China and ASEAN countries all committed to exercise self-restraint, to refrain from taking actions that would have negative impact on peace and stability in the region, it said. “If the Philippine side forcefully puts Scarborough Shoal and some other NANSHA reefs and islands inside the baseline of Philippine territorial seam, it will not only be conducive to the stability in the South China Sea but also disturb China-Philippine cooperation in the area, exerting negative impact on the healthy development of our bilateral relations,” it said. “So the Chinese government believes that the approval of such proposal in the House did not conform to the common interest of the two countries nor did it serve the interest of the Philippines,” it said. “Such a unilateral action will neither strengthen the legal position of the Philippine side nor will it be recognized and accepted by other parties and the international community,” the note said. The Chinese government then appealed to the Philippines to “strictly abide” by the consensus and commitments agreed on by the two countries and handle the issue with “utmost prudence.” The Chinese also requested Congress not to pursue the proposed measure. But while claiming that they would not be pressured by anyone, Cuenco admitted that China’s protest was “one of the reasons” why the passage of the bill had been delayed. Another reason was the opinion raised by lawyer Estelito Mendoza that the proposed map of the country’s base-line might not be in accordance with the law, he said. Mendoza’s opinion is shared by Malacañang and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Cuenco said. Mendoza was present when the committee voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to send back the bill, although Cuenco said this decision has yet to be put to a formal motion on the floor. But instead of making that motion, Cuenco said he would ask the plenary to defer action on the bill. “Ang proposal ko, huwag munang galawin. Huwag munang ibalik sa committee o aprubahan sa [My proposal is to defer it. That it should not be returned to the committee or approved on] third and final reading,” he said. “Let’s call for an all party-caucus first when we resume next month before we resume our discussions on the bill,” he said. ----------- DFA mum on alleged China lobbying vs RP territory bill By Tarra Quismundo Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 20:30:00 03/12/2008 MANILA, Philippines -- The Department of Foreign Affairs has refused to comment on the alleged pressure being made by China to slow down House approval of a bill that would define the country’s baselines to include the disputed Spratly Islands. Foreign Affairs Spokesman Claro Cristobal said he would have to get information from officials who might know about the matter. In a news forum Wednesday, Cebu Representative Antonio Cuenco, chair of the House committee on foreign affairs, said Chinese charge d'affaires Deng Xijun met with him last January to express Beijing’s displeasure over the bill's passage on second reading in December 2007. The House of Representatives is set to approve on third and final reading the baselines bill defining Philippine territory, under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas, to include the Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough Shoal in the disputed Spratlys. Cuenco also said he received from the Philippine Embassy in China a copy of a communication from the Chinese government dated December 2007. In the document, Beijing made reference to the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) among the Philippines, China and Vietnam after saying that the baselines bill might affect bilateral cooperation in the South China Sea. "If the Philippine side forcefully puts Scarborough Shoal and some other Nansha reefs and islands inside the baseline of Philippine territorial sea, it will not be conducive to the stability ... [and will] also disturb China-Philippine cooperation in the area," the document read in part. The JMSU is now being criticized as unconstitutional. Officials of the Arroyo government, however, said the JMSU was simply a seismic survey to determine oil deposits in Spratlys, not an exploration pact that should be undertaken by a consortium 60 percent owned by Filipinos, according to the 1987 Constitution. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 13 2008, 12:55 AM Post #115 |
![]()
|
China objects to boundary set by RP House in Spratlys GMA News footage |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 13 2008, 12:19 PM Post #116 |
![]()
|
Fr. Bernas: Public has right to know Spratlys accord abs-cbnnews.com Constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas on Wednesday said the government should release the Spratlys project agreement among the Philippines, China, and Vietnam following reports that the trilateral pact is unconstitutional. Bernas, Dean of the Ateneo de Manila Law School and one of the authors of the 1987 Constitution, said Article 3, Section 7 of the 1987 charter states that the public has the right to information on matters of public interest. "I believe this is a matter of public interest so the information about this has to be made public," he told radio dzMM. Bernas disagreed with Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Sergio Apostol who said Wednesday that the government cannot reveal the full details of the agreement since it was agreed with China and Vietnam that the agreement must be kept confidential. "They cannot agree to hide from the people a matter of such public interest because there are constitutional issues involved in this," he said. Based on a copy he received via e-mail, the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) agreement signed March 14, 2005 covers about 20,000 square kilometers of land and water, which could intrude into the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. He said the agreement allowed a Chinese company to conduct a seismic survey of natural resources in Philippine territory. It also included a provision which says that if petroleum is found in the area, the President may enter into financial and technical assistance with foreign corporations subject to the limitation imposed by Congress. They must also report to Congress within 30 days. "It seems to me that this is exploration, with financial and technical assistance of Chinese. It’s covered by the Constitution. And whatever the agreement, it’s the President who enters into the agreement, according to the constitution, not anybody else,'" Bernas said. "So there are very serious questions here and I don’t know the clear answer." A report by Barry Wain in the Far Eastern Economic Review earlier revealed that the Philippines might have weakened its claim on the Spratly group of islands when President Arroyo agreed to the JMSU, which was signed by the national oil companies of the Philippines, China, and Vietnam. The 3-year JMSU provides for “joint acquisition of seismic data in order to assess the petroleum resource potential” of the area covered in the study, according to a press statement on the Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC)-Exploration Corp. website. The PNOC-EC said the tripartite agreement “covers an area of 142,886 kilometers west of Palawan.” It took effect July 2005. ASK THE SUPREME COURT Bernas said any Filipino taxpayer could file a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court if the administration refuses to release the full agreement in public. If a mandamus petition is granted, the government would have to disclose the information and agreements affected by public interest. He also said Congress could also use its oversight function to get a copy of the JMSU from Malacañang. Former Philippine National Oil Corp. (PNOC) President Eduardo Manalac and former House Speaker Jose de Venecia earlier challenged the government to release the map that would show where the search for oil and gas was conducted in the disputed South China Sea. Both officials said said the public disclosure of the map would help determine if the agreement among the three countries violated the Philippine Constitution or any law. Both asserted that the JMSU, signed in March 2005, was above board. The PNOC-EC has refused to disclose the map, citing a confidentiality agreement among the three countries. Manalac said it was better for the three countries to share in the oil or gas finds than to just let these energy resources stay untapped. He said the Philippines does not have the millions of dollars needed for oil exploration. If oil or gas is found, he said the Philippine government only has to ensure the 60% government share in royalties from the income of the project. He said Philippine law allows 100% foreign ownership in oil exploration, but it must be 60%-40% sharing in favor of government in the royalties. Manalac said it would be good if the JMSU is taken to its next step—drilling for oil or gas—since the money invested in the seismic survey would be put to waste if the project is not pursued. In this next stage, the Philippines would have to come up with a production-sharing service contract. China and Vietnam each has its own law to follow in the next stage of the project. Manalac said the initial results of the seismic survey were “very encouraging”. They showed “potential prospects” for oil or gas drilling. TOO CLOSE TO PALAWAN An abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak report earlier revealed that energy officials were aware as early as 2004 that the bilateral agreement they signed with China to explore the Spratlys for oil deposits covered an area that was within Philippine waters and should not have been allowed. The tacit admission was made when they decided half a year later to revise the map annexed to the JMSU, according to interviews with government officials privy to the agreement. Last Friday, the Department of Energy (DOE) presented a map that showed how clearly the area covered by the Philippines’ joint seismic survey with China and Vietnam is within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). abs-cbnNews.com/Newsbreak was shown the map presented to select members of the Cabinet led by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. The map, a revision of the one annexed to the pact with China, showed that the survey area still encroaches on the Philippines waters, and therefore violated local and international laws. The new map served as the annex to the tripartite JMSU pact that was signed on March 14, 2005, which by then already included Vietnam. The original map, which was annexed to the bilateral pact between the Philippines and China signed half a year earlier, showed a survey area closer to Philippine territory. It was revised after a Cabinet official pointed out in 2004 that the original location targeted by the JMSU with China was “too close” to Palawan. The revised map moved the 142,886-square-kilometer seismic survey area farther from Palawan toward the southwest. The new map shows that the new location is now slightly below the Malampaya exploration site, based on another map published earlier by the Philippine National Oil Corporation (PNOC), which signed the JMSU pact on behalf of the DOE. The map that PNOC made public in 2005 did not show the lines of the Philippines’ EEZ. ENCROACHMENT Still, the new survey area encroaches on Philippine waters, according to legal experts. With a line showing where 200 nautical miles from the Philippine territorial lines end on the new map, it was established that, still, around 80 percent of the 142,886-square kilometer area of the joint marine seismic undertaking (JMSU) is within Philippine waters. The 200-nautical-mile EEZ was delineated by the Philippines under Presidential Decree 1599 of President Ferdinand Marcos and is acknowledged by the international community under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Legal and science experts Newsbreak consulted said that it doesn’t matter if the survey area was moved a little farther from the original location; it still violated both local and international laws. Worse, agreeing to the area covered by the JMSU, the Philippines derogated its sovereign rights over the area. They said that allowing China and Vietnam to operate within this EEZ effectively acknowledged that the area, already belonging to the Philippines, is disputed. “The bottom line is, we have weakened our case [before the international court] because we are saying that the area is not exclusively ours,” said a legal expert formerly with the Cabinet. The Philippines is a claimant to a group of islands in the Spratlys. Its EEZ shows it as the country nearest the disputed area. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| flipzi | Mar 13 2008, 08:13 PM Post #117 |
|
R-A-T-S
![]()
|
China has no right to stop us from protecting our territory. The problem with China is it has become TOO GREEDY. They are already one of the largest nation in the whole world and they even robbed the Tibetan people their own land. China must be stopped from being too greedy. Fidel Ramos was a coward. I would have destroyed the structure the Chinese put up in Mischief Reef, rigth from the very start. It's the closest presence of the Chinese bully in our terriroty. But since Ramos was a coward, he decided to let the Chinese steal it from us. |
![]() " Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution " " People don't care what we know until they know we care. " getflipzi@yahoo.com | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 13 2008, 09:00 PM Post #118 |
![]()
|
it all boils down now as to how we are going to define the extent of our country's territorial boundaries regardless of the kind of protest that Beijing lodges against us. are we going to include the entire Kalayaan Island Group chain and Scarborough Shoal as legitimate parts of Philippine territory and, later on, incite more conflict or are we going to adopt a "play safe" option by only including Philippine-occupied islands as part of Philippine territory. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| epigone | Mar 13 2008, 09:51 PM Post #119 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The late senator Arturo Tolentino had a better legal opinion on that. His legalese accurately defined what constituted Philippine territory or the 200 mile limit zone. His library of authored books can be basis of decision of the international body deciding on it. I argue that WE SHOULD WIN OUR CASE on the basis of Tolentino's 200 mile limit zone law which was approved by international bodies in 1980. |
| "Provocation is a valid defense against homicide"- Canadian Law on MSantor who 'cough, cough..', passes by my company room with a cup of coffee, waits for me in the bus shelter together with his friends and provoke me, and has been stalking me in forums like army.ca, navy.ca, timawa.net, militaryforums.com... He indeed is 'SEEKING DEATH' - Holy Bible. | |
![]() |
|
| flipzi | Mar 14 2008, 08:44 AM Post #120 |
|
R-A-T-S
![]()
|
The reason why China and the rest of the claimants dare contest our rights over the Spratly's is because we are ALWAYS SHOWING HOW WEAK WE ARE even in the negotiations. We simply settle for the compromise while they never settle for anything less of their one-sided demand. Look at what China did? We hold on to the status quo on occupation... but China insulted us by getting in too close to Palawan by putting up the structures in Mischief Reef. Worse, we were under a coward president then, Fidel Ramos, who failed to act quickly and bravely enough to prevent the Chinese from turning the wooden structure into a fortified fortress. I say we solidify our position on the 200-EEZ, which is what the UNCLOS dictates, to safeguard our territory and sovereignty. Then we resolve the claim on the Spratly's in an another discussion. Plain and simple. For now we should solidify our sovereignty on the 200 EEZ. We must not go any less. Another is, we must modernize our military now so we can enforce our sovereignty there and have a BETTER BARGAINING CHIP. As for the war or surrender? It may not exactly be an armed confrontion. But why not if necessary? I'd give them all a good fight in ways advantageous to us. As for China's displeasure angle, ... so what? We should be concerned on working on our displeasure for China's brazen and stupid intrusion into the Mischief Reef. |
![]() " Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution " " People don't care what we know until they know we care. " getflipzi@yahoo.com | |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic » |










![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
8:32 AM Jul 11