Recent reports coming out of disputed waters in the South China Sea are painting a picture of persistent tensions in the region, with new evidence emerging that Beijing is saving its harshest words for Philippine aircraft.
Headlines this week highlighted warnings frequently given by the Chinese navy to US planes flying near disputed islands, but it seems that they are getting the polite treatment.
According to a report from the BBC, China’s warnings to Philippine aircraft are much more menacing than those delivered to their American counterparts.
The more menacing tone of PLA warning to Philippine aircraft, compared to US aircraft, is striking. Calibrated to intimidate smaller, weaker states? https://t.co/SsQXdZaevk
— Euan Graham (@graham_euan) August 11, 2018
“Philippine military aircraft. I’m warning you again: Leave immediately or you will bear responsibility for all the consequences,” a voice can be heard saying. The tone was noticeably more aggressive than the warning given to the American airmen.
According to US airmen speaking in the BBC report, the warnings they receive are routine and have no effect on their operations.
In response to the reports, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte issued a rare criticism of China’s actions in the region, urging Beijing to “temper” the warnings.
“You cannot create an island and you say that the air above the artificial island is your own. That is wrong. The right to innocent passage is guaranteed,” Duterte said on Tuesday, as quoted by Philippine news website Rappler.
“I hope that China would temper its behavior. I do not want to quarrel with China but at this time. America in case of saying ‘get out, get out,’ China will say ‘go in’. […] One of these days the hothead commander there will press a trigger,” he added.
Steve Jiau, how stupid you could be!!
Steve Jiau, how stupid you could be!!
Vic Ceniza Spratly Islands
Vic Ceniza Spratly Islands
Steve Jiau what island are you talking about which the Phils. Illegally occupied??? Be more specific!
Steve Jiau what island are you talking about which the Phils. Illegally occupied??? Be more specific!
Taloban Caramat Armando I doubt you still have the ability to do that without viagra.
Taloban Caramat Armando I doubt you still have the ability to do that without viagra.
Very simple problem and to make it fair to both parties, China and Philippines should conduct a joint survey to determain the distance which is closer the area that now China developed.
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo This article appeared in Manila Times.
Our country’s shifting Spratlys position
BY SASS ROGANDO SASOT
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
A NEWS report by The Guardian on July 27, 1971 (“Islands of contention”) reveals a stark difference between the position of the Philippines on the Spratly Islands during that time and its stance today.
Writing from Manila, esteemed war correspondent Jack Foisie underscored the difference between the position of the Philippines, People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and the two Vietnams. While other claimants argued that the Spratly Islands belong to them since time immemorial, the Philippines stressed that the islands belonged to no one.
Two weeks before Foisie’s article, a diplomatic incident happened between Taiwan and the Philippines. Rep. Ramon Mitra claimed that he was “fired on” while “peacefully fishing” near Itu Aba, the largest island in the Spratlys, militarily occupied by Taiwan.
President Ferdinand Marcos protested against the occupation and demanded that Taiwan leave Itu Aba. However, he didn’t protest too much because he thought that the Spratly Islands belonged to the Philippines.
Invoking the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Marcos argued that the archipelago must be considered as “trust territories” of the allied nations that won against Japan during World War 2. By virtue of the peace treaty between Japan and the Allied powers, the former renounced claim to several islands which include the Spratlys. However, the treaty didn’t indicate to whom they should be given.
Among the diplomatic cables Wikileaks released was the 1971 aide memoire on the Spratly Islands that Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos Romulo sent to the US Embassy in Manila. Paragraph 5 expounds on the position of that Philippines:
“In 1957, we affirmed that the Spratley Island Group falls under the de facto trusteeship of the Allied Powers by virtue [of the] Japanese Peace Treaty signed and concluded in San Francisco on September 8, 1951, whereby Japan renounced all her rights, title and claim to these islands. By virtue of that trusteeship no one may introduce troops on any of these islands without the permission and consent of the allied powers. Our position on this matter remains firm.”
Responding to Marcos’ pronouncements, Foisie noted that the British and Dutch governments instructed their ambassadors to inform the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs that they were not interested in “administering the Spratlys,” even though they were part of the allied nations.
Marcos’ belief that the islands belonged to no one, of course, didn’t stop him from militarily occupying the islands (without the consent of other claimants and the Allied Powers) and from issuing presidential decrees that renamed (as Kalayaan) and annexed them, to the surprise of other claimants.
There was even a moment that the Philippines had to deny that it occupied another feature in the Spratly Islands. As Robert Whymant reported in The Guardian, on March 2, 1978, “Philippine marines moved into the seventh island, Panata.” And during the visit of Chinese Vice Premier Li Hsien-Nien to Manila on March 17, 1978, Marcos denied that the island was just newly seized. Marcos backdated the occupation because it puts the country in an “embarrassing situation,” Whymant observed.
A news report by The Guardian on May 3, 1978, quoted a military source in the Philippines who explained the Panata seizure: “We are moving in because we do not want to wake up and find the Vietnamese on the island.” The news report also mentioned that military sources see “the Philippine buildup as the only way to check Vietnamese control spreading over the area.”
But of course, the Philippines failed to do that. To this date, Vietnam is still the preponderant power in the Spratlys. On May 13, 2015, then US Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, noted this in his report to the Senate committee on foreign relations: “Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and Taiwan, 1.” It’s amazing that our country doesn’t seem to mind Vietnam’s activities in the Spratlys anymore, given that in the 1970s, it was its expansion in the area that we feared.
Another remarkable observation Foisie noted is how “Filipino lawmakers and Manila newspapers” made the “neutrality” of the islands a “patriotic issue.” This is entirely different from how Filipino lawmakers and the Philippine media talk about the islands today. The islands no longer belonged to no one but to the Philippines. Philippine ownership rather than the neutrality of the islands is now the tune of Filipino patriotism.
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo This article appeared in Manila Times.
Our country’s shifting Spratlys position
BY SASS ROGANDO SASOT
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
A NEWS report by The Guardian on July 27, 1971 (“Islands of contention”) reveals a stark difference between the position of the Philippines on the Spratly Islands during that time and its stance today.
Writing from Manila, esteemed war correspondent Jack Foisie underscored the difference between the position of the Philippines, People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, and the two Vietnams. While other claimants argued that the Spratly Islands belong to them since time immemorial, the Philippines stressed that the islands belonged to no one.
Two weeks before Foisie’s article, a diplomatic incident happened between Taiwan and the Philippines. Rep. Ramon Mitra claimed that he was “fired on” while “peacefully fishing” near Itu Aba, the largest island in the Spratlys, militarily occupied by Taiwan.
President Ferdinand Marcos protested against the occupation and demanded that Taiwan leave Itu Aba. However, he didn’t protest too much because he thought that the Spratly Islands belonged to the Philippines.
Invoking the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Marcos argued that the archipelago must be considered as “trust territories” of the allied nations that won against Japan during World War 2. By virtue of the peace treaty between Japan and the Allied powers, the former renounced claim to several islands which include the Spratlys. However, the treaty didn’t indicate to whom they should be given.
Among the diplomatic cables Wikileaks released was the 1971 aide memoire on the Spratly Islands that Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos Romulo sent to the US Embassy in Manila. Paragraph 5 expounds on the position of that Philippines:
“In 1957, we affirmed that the Spratley Island Group falls under the de facto trusteeship of the Allied Powers by virtue [of the] Japanese Peace Treaty signed and concluded in San Francisco on September 8, 1951, whereby Japan renounced all her rights, title and claim to these islands. By virtue of that trusteeship no one may introduce troops on any of these islands without the permission and consent of the allied powers. Our position on this matter remains firm.”
Responding to Marcos’ pronouncements, Foisie noted that the British and Dutch governments instructed their ambassadors to inform the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs that they were not interested in “administering the Spratlys,” even though they were part of the allied nations.
Marcos’ belief that the islands belonged to no one, of course, didn’t stop him from militarily occupying the islands (without the consent of other claimants and the Allied Powers) and from issuing presidential decrees that renamed (as Kalayaan) and annexed them, to the surprise of other claimants.
There was even a moment that the Philippines had to deny that it occupied another feature in the Spratly Islands. As Robert Whymant reported in The Guardian, on March 2, 1978, “Philippine marines moved into the seventh island, Panata.” And during the visit of Chinese Vice Premier Li Hsien-Nien to Manila on March 17, 1978, Marcos denied that the island was just newly seized. Marcos backdated the occupation because it puts the country in an “embarrassing situation,” Whymant observed.
A news report by The Guardian on May 3, 1978, quoted a military source in the Philippines who explained the Panata seizure: “We are moving in because we do not want to wake up and find the Vietnamese on the island.” The news report also mentioned that military sources see “the Philippine buildup as the only way to check Vietnamese control spreading over the area.”
But of course, the Philippines failed to do that. To this date, Vietnam is still the preponderant power in the Spratlys. On May 13, 2015, then US Assistant Secretary of Defense, David Shear, noted this in his report to the Senate committee on foreign relations: “Vietnam has 48 outposts; the Philippines, 8; China, 8; Malaysia, 5, and Taiwan, 1.” It’s amazing that our country doesn’t seem to mind Vietnam’s activities in the Spratlys anymore, given that in the 1970s, it was its expansion in the area that we feared.
Another remarkable observation Foisie noted is how “Filipino lawmakers and Manila newspapers” made the “neutrality” of the islands a “patriotic issue.” This is entirely different from how Filipino lawmakers and the Philippine media talk about the islands today. The islands no longer belonged to no one but to the Philippines. Philippine ownership rather than the neutrality of the islands is now the tune of Filipino patriotism.
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo See what a former US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. have said about South China Sea.
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo See what a former US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. have said about South China Sea.
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo See what a former US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. have said about South China Sea.
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
and this article https://www.manilatimes.net/countrys-shifting-spratlys-position/378896/
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo See what a former US Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. have said about South China Sea.
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
and this article https://www.manilatimes.net/countrys-shifting-spratlys-position/378896/
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo China has a lot of documents that can proof Spratly Islands belong to China. However, they are in Chinese. There are a lot of articles on the website and I will give you two websites. Those articles were written by a former US Ambassador and a Filipino.
https://www.manilatimes.net/countrys-shifting-spratlys-position/378896/
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
Alec Glenn Pedria Apollo China has a lot of documents that can proof Spratly Islands belong to China. However, they are in Chinese. There are a lot of articles on the website and I will give you two websites. Those articles were written by a former US Ambassador and a Filipino.
https://www.manilatimes.net/countrys-shifting-spratlys-position/378896/
https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/
Steve Jiau sir im very interested to learn more about your side. Can u pls give reference(s) of these? Like books or websites that i can read? Thanks
Steve Jiau sir im very interested to learn more about your side. Can u pls give reference(s) of these? Like books or websites that i can read? Thanks
Ed Molo One more shameless Filipino.