- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
NgTran Post time: 2015-6-12 13:34
The ITLOS has no jurisdiction about territorial claims. Everybody knows that, even President Aquino. ...
Now, you can tell that to "her" your countrymen, that all the drama about dragging China to the ITLOS to decide whether or not China has sovereignty over the islands claimed by Mr. Tomas, was just a show, because the Philippines knew all along that the ITLOS does not have the authority to arbitrate over matters of sovereignty on its own authority under UNCLOS, but MUST obtain the consent of both parties, a consent that China has every RIGHT TO REFUSE TO GRANT WITHOUT ANY WRONG AT ALL.
But why drag the ITLOS into the dispute when it has no authority under UNCLOS to decide matters of sovereignty?
IN ORDER TO HIDE THE REAL FALSITY OF THE PHILIPPINE CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY ON THE BASIS OF MR. TOMAS CLAIMING TO HAVE "DISCOVERED" THE PAGASA ISLAND IN THE SPRATLY ISLANDS AS A "TERRA NULLIUS" WHICH WAS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS, BECAUSE ALL THE ISLANDS OF THE SPRATLY GROUP HAD BEEN RETURNED BY JAPAN TO CHINA IN 1945 UNDER THE TERMS OF ITS SURRENDER, PRECISELY BECAUSE JAPAN STOLE THEM FROM CHINA BEFORE THAT, AND THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF CHINA'S OWNERSHIP OF THE ISLANDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DATE BACK TO 200 BC (SORRY YOU WERE NOT YET BORN AS A NATION THEN, BUT CHINA WAS, AND WAS AHEAD OF YOU IN CLAIMING THESE ISLANDS AS HER OWN BY MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND YEARS).
The Philippine claim of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands had NOTHING to do with its EEZ that does not confer any sovereign territory to the Philippines, beyond the 12 nautical mile radius from its coastline.
The Philippine claim of sovereignty over the Spratly Island had NOTHING to do with ITLOS and UNCLOS which have by treaty articles excluded sovereignty matters from their jurisdiction.
The Philippine claim of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands had EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE MISTAKEN CLAIMS OF MR. TOMAS THAT THESE WERE TERRA NULLIUS, WHEN BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY THEY WERE ALREADY OCCUPIED FIRST BY CHINA, THEN BY JAPAN, AND THEN RETURNED BACK TO CHINA, AS ATTESTED TO BY THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN TAIWAN, WHICH IN 1946 HELD AN OFFICIAL CEREMONY ON ITU ABA, THE BIGGEST ISLAND IN THE SPRATLY ISLANDS, ACCEPTING JAPAN'S RETURN OF THESE ISLANDS TO CHINA.
Aquino should forget his "experts" who have an ax to grind, especially those experts who wrote a farcical tract on the South China Sea three years ago that was completely biased and contradictory to historical facts, who are not even Filipinos or Chinese, but actually wanted to give most of these islands to Vietnam, another Johnny-come-lately who illegally occupied many of these islands when China was not watching, and now claim by right of squatting that it now owns what it stole. No, Aquino should simply read the story of Mr. Tomas, and how his "Freedom Land" was initially promoted as an independent country, not even part of the Philippines, and then taken over by Marcos who changed the name to "Kalayaan" to make it sound more like an original Filipino word, and give it the patina of passable historicity.
What I am more concerned about is the livelihood of the Filipino fishermen who have assumed that the Philppines had true sovereignty over these islands and their territorial waters, when the Philippines did not. As a matter of humanitarian concern, the Philippines should send a delegation to China, not to insist on what is patently and historically false, that it has some kind of sovereignty over these waters, but to negotiate terms that allow these fishermen to make a living as they had, in good faith, in the mistaken belief that they were fishing in Philppine waters, or its EEZ, when in fact, they were fishing in China's territorial waters and China's EEZ. Granted there would still be an overlap between the Philppine EEZ and the Chinese EEZ in the waters between the Spratly Islands and the Philppine coastline (based in Palawan island). This can be the basis for negotiating a humane solution to feed the families of these fishermen. Your Department of Foreign Affairs refused to negotiate with China on the factual basis that China does in fact have sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, which is a fact that China cannot abandon even it is willing to negotiate an agreement of sharing in the resources of the Spratly Islands. But what is the basis for your diplomats refusing to accept China's sovereignty over the Spratly Islands? Is it because Mr. Tomas REALLY 'DISCOVERED" THE SPRATLY ISLANDS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DID? Do they really believe that? Are they gullible, or are they just greedy, and are blinded by their greed at the expense of the truth? Let us hope they were simply mistaken, and if so, they should be the ones to approach China, not to imply they have some sovereignty, or to share and split China's sovereignty, which are indivisible entities, but to share simply in the marine resources of the Spratly Islands. This, the humanitarian aspect of the negotiations, China is very OPEN to undertaking with the Philippine government. China understands they were used to making a living off the fish in the region, but within reason, and China's own needs for its fishermen, the marine resources may be abundant enough to be shared with the Filipino fishermen, especially those who work for themselves to feed their families, as the fishing companies are big enough to move their operations elsewhere without competing for the limited marine resources that the independent solo fishermen need for their livelihood.
Ng Tran, honesty is the best policy. You not only get the respect you deserve from China, but you also get a lot of concessions from China that you otherwise cannot get by insisting on stealing them from her by force or by proxy, using the military power of your ex-colonial masters to threaten Chinese patrols with. The latter road may look easier to travel, but it leads to a dead end, and should not be traveled at all.