And so it begins - Philippine warship in standoff with China vessels

s002wjh

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
1,271
Likes
155
Country flag
Any sane person reading this can figure out who is bending the argument. What I said.

1) dont bring US -IRAN/NK as there is no territorial dispute.
2) Even if you bring US in, they do go around beating countries up just for the heck of it uinlike china
3) just like india claims chinese occupied territory, china claims Arunachal, so neither has the balls to do anything about it - status quo is fine.
4) I dont deny that you live in america and you are an american citizen. I only stated that dont pretend to be a neutral observer and commentator on the SCS issue as you are obviously one eyed and biased - since you are Chinese.

please reply, I am in the mood to make you look stupid.
1. i bring in US cause its an example of US not goign to war against NK/iran due to political reason, same with china. china don't want use force, 1)which create a bad image for them 2) further push other toward US side. 3) opposite of their claim of peceaful rise 4) china tend to use its softpower.
2. so you agree china is not agressor since it doesn't go around beating up countries:confused: ;) US don't beat up countries for the heck of it, it always have a reason, cost/benefit etc.
3 and its same with vietnam. its not about balls(lol you sound like one of those dog fight people) its about cost vs benefit and political reason.
4. when did i say SCS belong to china?? when did i bias toward china, if you go through my old post. i said the area is disputed. a peceaful solution is the best way.

anyway don't be an ignorant, ask some expert on it or research on this topic. i got work to do.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
another gem of a response. If the US had territorial disputes with another country will they take it or will they stay pussies like china?
 

s002wjh

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
1,271
Likes
155
Country flag
US will take it. reason been no one can counter US. however, read my post 181, part2. US has vast interest in naviagation in that area and contain china.
read the article, it explain why, don't know will open your stubborn mind or not ;)
Asia Times Online :: Hidden depths in South China Sea tensions
In this context, diplomacy seems to have taken center stage over South China Sea disputes. With the decision to implement the DOC, authorities in Beijing want to demonstrate that China is not a threat to regional security and to recover the prestige it has lost also due to its assertive behavior. "But China also knows that negotiating with ASEAN states cuts out any role for the United States in facilitating a settlement. It is in China's interest to draw out negotiations with ASEAN in order to play on differences among ASEAN states," added Thayer
 
Last edited:

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
US will take it. reason been no one can counter US. however, read my post 181, part2. US has vast interest in naviagation in that area and contain china.
read the article, it explain why, don't know will open your stubborn mind or not ;)
so you accept china is pussy and the US is not. Hence your comparison of US/Iran/NK to China/SCS is not valid. :cool2:
 

s002wjh

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
1,271
Likes
155
Country flag
so you accept china is pussy and the US is not. Hence your comparison of US/Iran/NK to China/SCS is not valid. :cool2:
stop make a fool of yourself, and trolling. i already put an article as why china didn't use force. read it. if you really want to get a beat down that bad you can go here. now if you excuse me i already waste enough time on this

South China Sea News Views & Opinions :rolleyes: wont you start go over this forum and make your point ;)
 
Last edited:

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
stop make a fool of yourself, and trolling. i already put an article as why china didn't use force. read it. if you really want to get a beat down that bad you can go here. now if you excuse me i already waste enough time on this

South China Sea News Views & Opinions :rolleyes: wont you start go over this forum and make your point ;)
of course you are wasting your time because you dont have a valid argument. I told you to stop a long time back but you kept persisting. now that you accept that you are incapable of making a valid point, i am glad you decided to leave.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
It is interesting to see that on the one hand Indian fellows criticised China for being an aggressor in SCS; on the other hand they also ridicule China for not waging war to capture the claimed island.

So what you guys want China to do? Wage a war against Phillippine and be a pacifist at the same time?

Well, I know what are in your mind. You simply want to see China get stuck in SCS, but too bad that is not going to happen.

War is the last resort to save any problem, China will not be the one to start the war. Initiating a war will only compound the situation and give US excuse to intervene, China is not that stupid.

But that doesn't mean China isn't having an upperhand. China is regaining the control of Huangyan Island by sending Chinese Marine surveillance vessels and Chinese fishery administration vessels there. There is no way that Phillippine could reverse the situation unless it escalates the it by sending its fully armed warship. But in that case, the responsibility of the war shall lay upon Phillippine, no country is gonna rescue it in a war started by Phillippine.

I noticed that someone mentioned that US is obligated to step in if there is war between China and Phillippine as it is dictated in a US-Phillippine treaty. But as far as I call tell, such treaty can only be activated when Phillippine's soil is under attack. If there is a war between China and Phillippine, the war is very likely to be confined to SCS, there is no way that China is gonna invade Phillippine. Another thing people should understand is that Phillippine's claim to SCS is recognized by no one, not even by US. In a war started by Phillippine, China will not only regain Huangyan Island, but also solve the problem for once and for all by recapturing all the SCS controlled by Phillippine.

Phillippine should behave very carefully as the standoff is still going on as it had made a very big mistake by intruding Chinese waters and harrassing Chinese fishmen in the first place. One more miscaculation, Phillippine is gonna regret forever.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
It is interesting to see that on the one hand Indian fellows criticised China for being an aggressor in SCS; on the other hand they also ridicule China for not waging war to capture the claimed island.

So what you guys want China to do? Wage a war against Phillippine and be a pacifist at the same time?

Well, I know what are in your mind. You simply want to see China get stuck in SCS, but too bad that is not going to happen.

War is the last resort to save any problem, China will not be the one to start the war. Initiating a war will only compound the situation and give US excuse to intervene, China is not that stupid.

But that doesn't mean China isn't having an upperhand. China is regaining the control of Huangyan Island by sending Chinese Marine surveillance vessels and Chinese fishery administration vessels there. There is no way that Phillippine could reverse the situation unless it escalates the it by sending its fully armed warship. But in that case, the responsibility of the war shall lay upon Phillippine, no country is gonna rescue it in a war started by Phillippine.

I noticed that someone mentioned that US is obligated to step in if there is war between China and Phillippine as it is dictated in a US-Phillippine treaty. But as far as I call tell, such treaty can only be activated when Phillippine's soil is under attack. If there is a war between China and Phillippine, the war is very likely to be confined to SCS, there is no way that China is gonna invade Phillippine. Another thing people should understand is that Phillippine's claim to SCS is recognized by no one, not even by US. In a war started by Phillippine, China will not only regain Huangyan Island, but also solve the problem for once and for all by recapturing all the SCS controlled by Phillippine.

Phillippine should behave very carefully as the standoff is still going on as it had made a very big mistake by intruding Chinese waters and harrassing Chinese fishmen in the first place. One more miscaculation, Phillippine is gonna regret forever.
Too gassy man. China is gonna do squat.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
Aha!

You write good English?

You must feel so since you must be an English teacher in China!

Anything goes out there as English!

I am still Finding the Real Nemo!
I didn't say I write good English, but I can tell what is good English.

If I have to choose a English teacher between s200wjh and oblaks, I am going to choose the former.

Please understand my nickname nimo is not a type error of nemo, but a derivation of it.
 
Last edited:

Jazer Esguerra

New Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
2
Likes
0
I noticed that someone mentioned that US is obligated to step in if there is war between China and Phillippine as it is dictated in a US-Phillippine treaty. But as far as I call tell, such treaty can only be activated when Phillippine's soil is under attack. If there is a war between China and Phillippine, the war is very likely to be confined to SCS, there is no way that China is gonna invade Phillippine.
Scarborough (or Panatag or Bajo de Masinloc as named by the Spanish) is only like 124 nm off our nearest coast. That shoal is way OVER 200 nm from China's nearest coast so your it only means one thing. China should have not rejected our appeal for your nation to stand up on the international court (I forgot the name).
And in case PHL gets attacked, US will participate as mentioned in the treaty.
I'm gonna give you an explanation that it is not only soil as a basis whether US is to defend our country or not.
Article V
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
(Note that WPS/SCS is a marginal sea of the Pacific)
 
Last edited:

cir

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,996
Likes
269
New chinese boats sighted in disputed shoal

Thursday, 19 April, 2012 Written by John Anthony Concepcion Tweet2

THE Philippines on Thursday confirmed that three Chinese fishing vessels have been sighted near the disputed waters of the Panatag or Scarborough Shoal, where it was locked last week in a tense standoff with surveillance vessels from China.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul Hernandez confirmed the presence of the Chinese boats even as he urged China to prove its claim over the disputed shoal in the International Tribunal of the Laws of the Sea, a demand Beijing has already rejected.

"We are still pursuing a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the standoff," Hernandez said.

"However, the presence of these Chinese fishing vessels will not help diffuse the situation."

Chinese state media reported on Thursday that another ship had been sent to the disputed area that has been the subject of the standoff since April 10.

Reports said China's fastest fishery administration vessel, the Yuzheng 310, left Guangzhou for (and has now arrived in)the Panatag Shoal.

The standoff started on April 10 when the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, the Philippine Navy's largest warship, encountered eight Chinese fishing boats filled with clams, whale sharks and other endangered species.

The ship attempted to confiscate the shipment and arrest the fishermen, but it was blocked by Chinese maritime surveillance ships.

The Chinese fishing boats freely exited the area when the BRP Del Pilar withdrew from the site for "operational reasons," and was replaced by a Coast Guard vessel.

Northern Luzon Command chief Lt. Gen. Anthony Alcantara on Thursday said the MY Sarangani, a vessel rented by the National Museum to conduct archeological research, and one of the two Coast Guard vessels, left the Panatag Shoal Wednesday night.

"So we have only one ship left in the area, the Coast Guard's SARV 002," Alcantara said.

"The two maritime surveillance ships (71 and 84) of China were still in the area along with three other unidentified foreign vessels believed to be from China also."

Alcantara said he was waiting for orders.

:thumb::rofl::rofl:

Also on Thursday, leftist groups said China's aggression against the Philippines at the Panatag Shoal showed its "imperialist ambition" in the region.

"China's aggressive moves on Philippine territory are the results of China's capitalist leadership who now appear to have imperialist ambitions in the region," said a statement from the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

"It bears noting that China's state has long ceased to be socialist. It is now unabashedly capitalist. It's impingement on our territory is in pursuit of expanding its economic interests in the region."

Bayan also warned the Philippine government against using the Panatag Shoal standoff to justify the expanded and increased presence of US troops in the Philippines.

"US intervention is also a violation of national sovereignty," the group said. With Florante S. Solmerin


3 new chinese boats sighted in disputed shoal | Manila Standard Today
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
6
Likes
13
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ARTICLE: XVIII

Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines)

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.


Bajo de Masinloc

Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of the Philippine territory. It is part of the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. It is located 124 nautical miles (220 kilometers) west of Zambales and is within the 200- nautical-mile (370 kilometers) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and Philippine continental shelf.

A Philippine Navy surveillance aircraft, patrolling the area to enforce the Philippine Fisheries Code and marine environment laws, spotted eight Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) on Sunday, April 8, 2012. On April 10, the Philippine Navy sent the BRP Gregorio del Pilar to the area. In accordance with established rules of engagement, an inspection team was dispatched and it reported finding large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams and live sharks in the compartments of the Chinese fishing vessels.

The actions of the Chinese fishing vessels are a serious violation of the Philippines' sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. The poaching of endangered marine resources is a violation of the Fisheries Code and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

Basis of sovereignty

Bajo de Masinloc (international name, Scarborough Shoal) is not an island. Bajo de Masinloc is also not part of the Spratlys.

Bajo de Masinloc is a ring-shaped coral reef, which has several rocks encircling a lagoon. About five of these rocks are above water during high tide. Some of these rocks are about three meters high and can be seen above the water. The rest of the rocks and reefs are submerged during high tide.

Bajo de Masinloc's chain of reefs and rocks is about 124 nautical miles (220 km) from the nearest coast of Luzon and approximately 472 nautical miles (850 km) from the nearest coast of China. Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately along latitude 15°08'N and longitude 117°45'E. The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated north of the Spratlys.

Obviously then the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are also within the 200 nautical mile EEZ and the 200 nautical mile continental shelf of the Philippines.

Distinction

A distinction has to be made between the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc and the larger body of water and continental shelf where the geological features are situated. The rights or nature of rights of the Philippines over Bajo de Masinloc are different from the rights it exercises over the larger body of water and continental shelf.

The Philippines exercises full sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, and sovereign rights over the waters and continental shelf where the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are situated.

The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc is distinct from that of its sovereign rights over the larger body of water and continental shelf.

A. Public international law

The rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territory.

The basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks is not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. That the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris, as alleged by China, is therefore immaterial and of no consequence.

Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rocks is likewise not premised on proximity or the fact that the rocks are within its 200 nautical mile EEZ or continental shelf under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). Although the Philippines necessarily exercises sovereign rights over its EEZ and continental shelf, the reason why the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are Philippine territory is anchored on other principles of public international law.

As decided in a number of cases by international courts or tribunals, most notably the Palmas Island Case, a mode for acquiring territorial ownership over a piece of real estate is effective exercise of jurisdiction. In the Palmas case, sovereignty over the Palmas Island was adjudged in favor of the Netherlands on the basis of "effective exercise of jurisdiction" although the island may have been historically discovered by Spain and historically ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Paris.

In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines, since it gained independence, has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc.

The name Bajo de Masinloc (which means Shallows of Masinloc or Masinloc Shoal) itself identifies the shoal as a particular political subdivision of the Philippine province of Zambales, known as Masinloc.

Maps

One of the earliest known and most accurate maps of the area, named Carta Hydrographical y Chorographica de las Yslas Filipinas by Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, SJ, and published in 1734, showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Zambales.

The name Bajo de Masinloc was given to the shoal by the Spanish colonizers. In 1792, another map, drawn by the Alejandro Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. This map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census.

The Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila published in 1990 by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of the Philippines.

Philippine flags have been erected on some of the islets of the shoal, including a flag raised on an 8.3-meter high flag pole in 1965 and another Philippine flag raised by Congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap in 1997. In 1965, the Philippines built and operated a small lighthouse on one of the islets in the shoal. In 1992, the Philippine Navy rehabilitated the lighthouse and reported it to the International Maritime Organization for publication in the List of Lights (currently this lighthouse is not working).

Bajo de Masinloc was also used as target range by Philippine and US naval forces stationed in Subic Bay in Zambales. The Philippines' Department of Environment and Natural Resources together with the University of the Philippines has also been conducting scientific, topographic, and marine studies in the shoal. Filipino fishermen have always considered the shoal their fishing grounds because of its proximity to the coast of southwest Luzon.

Archipelagic baselines

In 2009, when the Philippines passed an amended Archipelagic Baselines Law fully consistent with Unclos, Bajo de Masinloc was classified under the "Regime of Islands" consistent with the Law of the Sea.

"Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the Unclos:

a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and

b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal."

Comments on Chinese claims

Question:

But what about the historical claim of China over Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal)? Does China have superior right over Bajo de Masinloc on the basis of its so-called historical claim? China is claiming Bajo de Masinloc based on historical arguments, claiming it to have been discovered by the Yuan Dynasty. China is also claiming that Bajo de Masinloc has been reflected in various official Chinese maps and has been named by China in various official documents.

Answer:


Chinese assertions based on historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. It should be noted that under public international law, historical claims are not historical titles. A claim by itself, including historical claim, could not be a basis for acquiring a territory.

Under international law, the modes of acquiring a territory are: discovery, effective occupation, prescription, cession and accretion. Also, under public international law, for a historical claim to mature into a historical title, a mere showing of long usage is not enough.

Other criteria have to be satisfied, such as that the usage must be open, continuous, adverse or in the concept of an owner, peaceful and acquiesced by other states. Mere silence by other states to one's claim is not acquiescence under international law. Acquiescence must be affirmative such that other states recognize the claim as a right on the part of the claimant that other states ought to respect as a matter of duty. There is no indication that the international community has acquiesced to China's so-called historical claim.

Naming and placing on maps are also not bases in determining sovereignty. In international case law relating to questions of sovereignty and ownership of land features, names and maps are not significant factors in the determination of international tribunals' determination of sovereignty.

Question:

What about China's claims that Bajo de Masinloc is traditional fishing waters of Chinese fishermen?

Answer:


Under international law, fishing rights are not a mode of acquiring sovereignty (or even sovereign rights) over an area. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a state nor can it be considered a display of state authority. Fishing is an economic activity done by private individuals. For occupation to be effective there has to be clear demonstration of the intention and will of a state to act as sovereign and there has to be peaceful and continuous display of state authority, which the Philippines has consistently demonstrated.

Besides, when Unclos took effect, it has precisely appropriated various maritime zones to coastal states, eliminating so-called historical waters and justly appropriating the resources of the seas to coastal states to which the seas are appurtenant. "Traditional fishing rights" is in fact mentioned only in Article 51 of Unclos, which calls for archipelagic states to respect such rights, if such exist, in its archipelagic waters.

It should also be noted, that in this particular case, the activities of these so-called fishermen can be hardly described as fishing. The evidence culled by the Philippine Navy showed clearly that these are poaching, involving the harvesting of endangered marine species, which is illegal in the Philippines and illegal under international law, specifically the CITES.

B. Basis of sovereign rights

As earlier indicated, there is a distinction between the rocks of Bajo Masinloc and the waters around them. The question of ownership of the rocks is governed by the principles of public international law relating to modes for acquiring territories. On the other hand, the extent of its adjacent waters is governed by Unclos. The waters outside of the maritime area of Bajo de Masinloc are also governed by Unclos.

As noted, there are only about five rocks in Bajo de Masinloc that are above water during high tide. The rest are submerged during high tide. Accordingly, these rocks have only 12 nautical miles maximum territorial waters under Article 121 of Unclos. Since the Philippines has sovereignty over the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, it follows that it has also sovereignty over their 12 nautical miles territorial waters.

Question:

But what about the waters outside the 12 nautical miles territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc, what is the nature of these waters including the continental shelves? Which state has sovereign rights over them?

Answer:


As noted, Bajo de Masinloc is located approximately at latitude 15°08'N and longitude 117°45'E. It is approximately 124 nautical miles off the nearest coast of Zambales. Clearly, the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc are within the 200 nautical miles EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines.

Therefore, the waters and continental shelves outside of the 12 nautical miles territorial waters of the rocks of Bajo de Masinloc appropriately belong to the EEZ and continental shelf of the Philippines. As such, the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources within these areas to the exclusion of other countries under Unclos. Part V of Unclos, specifically provides that the Philippines exercises exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage resources whether living or nonliving, in this area. Although other states have the right of freedom of navigation over these areas, such rights could not be exercised to the detriment of the internationally recognized sovereign rights of the Philippines to explore and exploit the resources in its 200 nautical miles EEZ and continental shelf. To do otherwise would be in violation of international law, specifically Unclos.

Therefore, the current action of the Chinese surveillance vessels within the Philippine EEZ is obviously inconsistent with its right of freedom of navigation and in violation of the sovereign rights of the Philippines under Unclos. It must also be noted that the Chinese fishermen earlier apprehended by Philippine law enforcement agents may have poached not only in Bajo de Masinloc but likely also in the EEZ of the Philippines. Therefore, these poachers have violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines under Unclos.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
6
Likes
13
US commander reaffirms Philippines defense treaty.

PUERTO PRINCESA, Philippines - A senior US commander in the Pacific reaffirmed the United States' mutual defense treaty with the Philippines Sunday, April 22, amid increased tensions between the archipelago and China.

In the strongest comments yet from an American official on the South China Sea dispute, Commander of the US Marines in the Pacific Lieutenant General Duane Thiessen said the Philippines and US were bound by a military agreement.

"The United States and the Philippines have a mutual defense treaty which guarantees that we get involved in each other's defense and that is self explanatory," he told reporters in Puerto Princesa, the capital of Palawan.

Thiessen was responding to a question about whether the US would provide assistance if Chinese armed forces attacked Philippine units over conflicting claims to the Scarborough Shoal which have flared up in recent weeks.

The US commander did not elaborate on what kind of assistance would be provided.

He also stressed that US-Philippine military exercises that began last week were not directed at China and not linked to territorial tensions.

"There is no direct linkage. There is no tie between Scarborough Shoal and US movement in the Pacific," he said.

His remarks came after Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario issued a statement calling on other countries to take a stand on China's alleged aggressiveness in the region.

"Since the freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the (South China Sea) are of great import to many nations, all should consider what China is endeavoring to do in the Scarborough Shoal," del Rosario said.

"All, not just the Philippines will be ultimately negatively affected if we do not take a stand," he said in an SMS message sent to reporters.

Chinese and Philippine ships began a standoff in Scarborough Shoal on April 8, giving increased attention to the annual joint military exercise this year.

A Philippine coast guard ship and two Chinese vessels are still facing off over the two countries' conflicting claims to the shoal, about 230 kilometers (140 miles) from the main Philippine island of Luzon.

A Chinese military paper recently warned that the latest US-Philippine exercise increased the threat of an armed confrontation in the region.

China claims all of the South China Sea, even up to the coasts of other countries including the Philippines, directly conflicting with the claims of many of its neighbors.

While the Philippines concedes it cannot stand up to China's military might, officials have also cited its 1951 mutual defense treaty which calls on the United States to come to the country's aid in case of external attack. - Agence France-Presse
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
@RP/US-UN Korean Veteran ... Welcome to DFI. You will find Chinese trolls responding with BS soon.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
@RP, you call yourself a veteran. Are you from the armed forces?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top