MANILA – The Philippines’ sovereignty over the disputed South China Sea (SCS) is a “non-negotiable” part of the United States’ thrust in the Indo-Pacific region, the US Embassy in Manila said Thursday.

“The US is a proud Indo-Pacific member and we will forge stronger connections with our treaty allies, including the Philippines to promote broad-based prosperity and security,” US Embassy Chargé d’Affaires Heather Variava said, citing a recent policy speech by State Secretary Antony Blinken.

“Philippine sovereignty over its territorial waters in South China is a non-negotiable part of the US commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” she added.

She said Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. has been “very active in his diplomatic efforts” to make clear what the Philippine rights are in the region, and the US “certainly supports that”.

“I think you saw our statement after the Whitsun Reef incident last March and again in the Ayungin Shoal incident in November. We are continuing to reiterate these statements and urging the People’s Republic of China to respect the rights of the Philippines and other regions when it comes to this issue,” she said.

In a recent State Department report, the US government said Beijing’s maritime claims in the South China Sea “gravely undermine the rule of law in the oceans”.

Variava underscored the US’ readiness to work with the Philippines and other nations to “help support and bolster” the international rules-based order, and free and open use of the South China Sea.

China, the Philippines, and several other littoral states are locked in a territorial dispute over the South China Sea, where Beijing claims about 80 percent of the strategic water based on what it calls “historic rights”.

At present, the parties are utilizing bilateral and multilateral means to tackle the issue, including negotiating on a Code of Conduct with other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

The Philippines and China convene regular Bilateral Consultation Mechanism (BCM) on the SCS, with the most recent virtually held in May 2021.

As the 2022 elections loom, Variava expressed confidence that any discussions between the next administration and other countries on the South China Sea would not weaken the Philippine-US alliance.

“As a sovereign country, it is expected that the Philippines will have discussions with other countries in the region in attempting to resolve the territorial disputes, those discussions will not weaken a longstanding alliance between the US and the Philippines which is proven time and again to be a bedrock of stability and prosperity in this region,” she said.

She also reiterated that the US commitment to Philippine security is firm as she cited the PHP57 billion military assistance it has provided since 2015.
“The Philippines remains the largest recipient of military aid in the Indo-Pacific and this is a testament to our commitment to the Philippines and the peace and stability in this region,” she said. (PNA)

https://www.state.gov/study-on-the-peoples-republic-of-chinas-south-china-sea-maritime-claims/
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/LIS150-SCS.pdf

Executive Summary

This study examines the maritime claims of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea. The PRC’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“Convention”).

The PRC asserts four categories of maritime claims* in the South China Sea:
Sovereignty claims over maritime features. The PRC claims “sovereignty” over more than one hundred features in the South China Sea that are submerged below the sea surface at high tide and are beyond the lawful limits of any State’s territorial sea. Such claims are inconsistent with international law, under which such features are not subject to a lawful sovereignty claim or capable of generating maritime zones such as a territorial sea.
Straight baselines. The PRC has either drawn, or asserts the right to draw, “straight baselines” that enclose the islands, waters, and submerged features within vast areas of ocean space in the South China Sea. None of the four “island groups” claimed by the PRC in the South China Sea (“Dongsha Qundao,” “Xisha Qundao,” “Zhongsha Qundao,” and “Nansha Qundao”) meet the geographic criteria for using straight baselines under the Convention. Additionally, there is no separate body of customary international law that supports the PRC position that it may enclose entire island groups within straight baselines.
Maritime zones. The PRC asserts claims to internal waters, a territorial sea, an exclusive economic zone, and a continental shelf that are based on treating each claimed South China Sea island group “as a whole.” This is not permitted by international law. The seaward extent of maritime zones must be measured from lawfully established baselines, which are normally the low-water line along the coast. Within its claimed maritime zones, the PRC also makes numerous jurisdictional claims that are inconsistent with international law.
Historic rights. The PRC asserts that it has “historic rights” in the South China Sea. This claim has no legal basis and is asserted by the PRC without specificity as to the nature or geographic extent of the “historic rights” claimed.
The overall effect of these maritime claims is that the PRC unlawfully claims sovereignty or some form of exclusive jurisdiction over most of the South China Sea. These claims gravely undermine the rule of law in the oceans and numerous universally-recognized provisions of international law reflected in the Convention. For this reason, the United States and numerous other States have rejected these claims in favor of the rules-based international maritime order within the South China Sea and worldwide.
* Islands in the South China Sea over which the PRC claims sovereignty are also claimed by other States. This study examines only the maritime claims asserted by the PRC and does not examine the merits of sovereignty claims to islands in the South China Sea asserted by the PRC or other States. The United States takes no position as to which country has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, which is not a matter governed by the law of the sea.

References to the Philippines

In 2016, having considered the PRC’s dashed-line claim, an arbitral tribunal convened in accordance with the Convention reached a similar conclusion in The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). The arbitral tribunal issued a unanimous decision, which is final and binding on the Philippines and the PRC, finding that: China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the “nine-dash line” are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention [and that] the Convention superseded any historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.
The PRC claims sovereignty over all of the South China Sea islands (and numerous other maritime features, as discussed below). Each island or group of islands is claimed by at least one other claimant: Philippines (Scarborough Reef and some of the Spratly Islands), Malaysia (some of the Spratly Islands), Brunei (Louisa Reef, within the Spratly Islands), Vietnam (Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands), and Taiwan (all islands and island groups). The geographic features described above are located within the dashed lines that have appeared in various locations on some PRC maps since being published by the Nationalist government of the Republic of China in 1947.
Numerous States, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, and the United States have protested the PRC’s baselines around the Paracel Islands as inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Convention.
Although the PRC has not officially promulgated straight baselines around the areas it describes as Nansha Qundao, its statements asserting the right to draw such baselines have led to opposition by numerous States, including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam. Considering that very few States publicly protest excessive maritime claims, these protests by a relatively large number of States are a particularly forceful rejection of the PRC’s legal position.
The tribunal’s award is final and binding on the PRC and the Philippines pursuant to Article 296 of the Convention.
The international community, including littoral States of the South China Sea, has made clear that it rejects the PRC’s historic rights claim. Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam have all publicly objected to the PRC’s historic rights claim, which is inconsistent with international law. The tribunal in The South China Sea Arbitration also rejected the PRC’s claims to historic rights in the South China Sea.

In a statement released by the US Embassy in Manila, the US State Department said the US “stands with our ally, the Philippines, in the face of this escalation that directly threatens regional peace and stability…”

The Full Statement:

“On the Situation in the South China Sea

Two days ago, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Coast Guard blocked and used water cannons against Philippine resupply ships en route to Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

The United States stands with our ally, the Philippines, in the face of this escalation that directly threatens regional peace and stability, escalates regional tensions, infringes upon freedom of navigation in the South China Sea as guaranteed under international law, and undermines the rules-based international order.

On July 12, 2016, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, delivered a unanimous and enduring decision firmly rejecting the PRC’s claims to Second Thomas Shoal and to waters determined to be part of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. 

The PRC and the Philippines, pursuant to their treaty obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention, are legally bound to comply with this decision.  The PRC should not interfere with lawful Philippine activities in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

The United States stands with our Philippine allies in upholding the rules-based international maritime order and reaffirms that an armed attack on Philippine public vessels in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S. Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.

The United States strongly believes that PRC actions asserting its expansive and unlawful South China Sea maritime claims undermine peace and security in the region.”

###

The USCG Cutter Munro (WMSL 755), equipped with Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Scan Eagle also known as Drone, was joined by the Philippines’ BRP Gabriela Silang (OPV-8301), BRP Sindangan (MRRV-4407), BRP Capones (MRRV-4404), BRP Lapu-Lapu (MMOV-5001), and an Airbus helicopter.

In a statement, the PCG said the joint maritime exercise is anchored in the Philippine – United States cooperation to promote security and enhance law enforcement interoperability in the country’s maritime jurisdiction.

It came after Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte reconsidered his order earlier to abrogate the Ph-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) when the US Government denied the Visa application of a Philippine Senator who is a close political ally.

In January Last year, the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the China Coast Guard (CCG) also conducted joint maritime drills on search and rescue (SAR) and combating fire at sea in the vicinity waters off Manila Bay. (VVV)

###

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Law Enforcement Dept. and Philippine Coast Guard personnel guided the vessels to a designated sheltering anchorage area in the bay.

Earlier, the Vietnamese Embassy in Manila sent a message to the Dept. of Foreign Affairs, Philippine Coast Guard and Philippine Navy requesting that assistance be extended to Vietnamese fishermen who might seek refuge inside Philippine Territory due to the Low Pressure Area (LPA) that developed into a Tropical Depression in the West Philippines Sea.

“The Embassy would like to ask the competent authorities to allow the Vietnamese fishing vessels and ships carrying the Vietnam’s flag to be anchored in the Philippines safe ports and safe places,” the Vietnamese Embassy said.

SBMA Chairman & Administrator Wilma T. Eisma said she has directed the Seaport Department to ascertain and provide the necessary assistance needed by the Vietnamese fishermen while in Subic Bay. (VVV)

According to Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chair & Administrator, Wilma T. Eisma, while Chinese nationals were on board on a “leisure” cruise of Subic Bay, the vessel was found to be owned by a non-Chinese foreign businessman based in Subic.

Upon receiving reports of the sighting, Eisma immediately alerted Defense Sec. Delfin Lorenzana and National Sec. Adviser Hermogenes Esperon over the alleged presence of a suspected Chinese Vessel that anchored off the coast of Subic Bay.

In a message to Subic Bay News, Eisma said she has apologized to Lorenzana and Esperon for the false alarm.

“I’m so sorry but it seems it’s a false alarm,” Eisma said in her text message to both Lorenzana and Esperon, “It’s a big yacht that has Chinese tourists on Board MV BALENA ll whose owner is based here in Subic.”

Eisma added “however, this is a good reason that we meet already so we can have protocols in place for special circumstances.”

SBMA has already issued a clarification in a press statement.

However, netizens still demand to determine the real purpose of the Chinese in going around the bay aboard the vessel.

Ito Ang Totoo: napaka-istratehiko nga naman ng Subic Bay hindi lamang sa larangan ng komersiyo kundi pati sa aspeto na pang-militar at seguridad sa bahaging ito ng Asya.

Kaya nang magsara ang Hanjin, ang kompanyang Koreano na gumagawa ng mga dambuhalang barko, kumilos din ang mga Intsik para maka-take-over sa mga pasilidad nito.

Gayunman, tiniyak na ni Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chairman and Administrator Wilma T. Eisma na sa mga susunod na buwan ay muling magbubukas ang shipbuilding facility sa ilalim ng kompanyang ayaw pa niyang pangalanan pero sigurado hindi raw Intsik.

Ito Ang Totoo: katakot-takot naman ang usapan nitong mga nakaraang araw kaugnay ng Grande at Chiquita Islands dito pa rin sa Subic, na umano’y kinukuha rin ng mga Intsik.

Sa harap ng mga paglapastangan ng China sa karapatan ng Pilipinas sa West Philippine Sea, nakaaalarma lalo ang presensiya ng mga Intsik sa balat ng lupa ng Pilipinas.

Naglipana na nga sila sa laganap na Online Gambling na umuokupa ng mga buong hotel, apartments, restaurants, pati dating eskuwelahan, at iyon nga, pati mga isla sa bibig ng Subic Bay ay gusto pa kunin.

Ito Ang Totoo:  hindi na dapat isyu ang pag-okupa ng mga Intsik sa dalawang isla dahil ibinasura na ng SBMA Board ang proposal ng kompanyang nakipagsabwatan sa mga Intsik, ang GFTG Property Holdings, Inc. sa pamamagitan ng pagbebenta ng mayoryang shares sa Sanya ng China.

Noong Mayo 19, 2019 naganap ang pagbasura na, ayon kay Eisma, ay sa kadahilanang lalabag sa konstitusyon ang panukalang proyekto ng GFTG Property Holdings Corp.

Naghahanap na lang daw ang SBMA ngayon ng ibang investor na magdi-develop sa naturang mga isla bilang tourist attraction.