Spratly Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about islands in the South China Sea. For people called Spratly, see Spratly (surname).
Spratly Islands Disputed islands

Spratly Islands

The Spratly Islands are a group of more than 750 reefs,[1] islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea. The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam. They comprise less than four square kilometers of land area spread over more than 425,000 square kilometers of sea. The Spratlys are one of three archipelagos of the South China Sea which comprise more than 30,000 islands and reefs and which complicate governance and economics in that region of Southeast Asia. Such small and remote islands have little economic value in themselves, but are important in establishing international boundaries. There are no native islanders but there are rich fishing grounds and initial surveys indicate the islands may contain significant reserves of oil and natural gas. About 45 islands are occupied by relatively small numbers of military forces from Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan), Malaysia and the Philippines. Brunei has also claimed an EEZ in the southeastern part of the Spratlys encompassing just one area of small islands above mean high water (on Louisa Reef.)

The Philippines' Illegal Claims in the Spratlys (Spratly Islands)

--The Lies and the Groundless Invasion into China's Spratly Islands of South China Sea

Table of Contents

1. Area of present claims 2. Brief history of the Filipino interest in the Spratlys 3. Was the Spratlys res nullius for Tomas Cloma to claim as his private discovery? 4. Is geography a legal basis for a sovereignty claim? 5. Is security a legal basis for the Filipino claim? 6. Conclusion

1. Area of Present Philippine Claims

The Philippines began to lay its claim over the Spratly Islands in 1970s. The Philippines claims the western section of the Spratlys, or t "Kalayaan Isaland Group" as called by the Philippines. That encompasses 53 islands, reefs, shoals cays, rocks and atolls with an area of 64,976 square miles. It is about 450 nautical miles from Manila and 230 nautical miles from Palawan. The Thitu Island (renamed as Pa asa/Pagasa by the Philippines) is the biggest island and the Philippines occupied this island in the 1970s. Along with Thitu Island, other islands in the Spratlys occupied by the Philippines include Flat Island (Feixin Dao in Chinese, Patag as the Philippines renamed it), Nansha Island (Mahuan Dao, Lawak), West York Island (Xiyue Dao, Likas), Lankiam Cay (Shuanghuan Shazhou, Panata), Loita Islan (Nanyue Dao, Kota), and Commodore Reef (Siling Jiao, Rizal Reef). [1]

2. Brief History of the Filipino Interest in the Spratlys and its Development

Out of its economic and strategic motivations, the French government made formal claims to the Spratlys in the early 1930s. On July 25 1933 the French Foreign Ministry announced the occupation of the nine islets of the Spratlys and asserted French sovereignty over them for the first time. The French action brought immediate protests from China.[2] At that time, the Philippines was a colony of America. Some Filipino congressman said the nine islands should belong to the Philippines according to the Treaty of Paris. However his suggestion was ignored by Washington since the Spratly Islands obviously were not within the Philippine boundary as stated by the Treaty Limits.

During the Second World War, Japan occupied both the Paracels (Paracel Islands) and Spratlys in 1939 shortly after they controlled Hainan Island. The Japanese used Itu Aba Island (Taiping Dao) as a submarine base and a springboard for its invasion of the Philippine At the end of the Pacific War in 1945, the Japanese forces on the South China Sea surrendered to the representatives of China. [1,p7-8] The newly established Philippine government Foreign Minister Qurino advocated on 23 July 1946 that the new Southern Islands (a term used by the Japanese for all the islands in the South China Sea) should be given to his country. This was the first indication of the intere in the Spratly Islands from the Philippines government.

In April 1949 , the Philippines sent its navy to explore the Spratlys. An article published in Manila Bulletin on May 15 1950 said that th Philippine government should occupy the Spratly Islands together with the United States because it was closer to Palawan compared w China and Vietnam. On May 17, the Philippine President Quirino said that if the Chinese Kuomingtang (Nationalist Party) troops really occupied the Spratlys, then Philippine didn't need to occupy them. However, if the islands fell into the communist enemy's hand, the Philippine security is threatened. So he created this theory that the Spratlys should belong to the nearest country according to internatio

law. and the Philippines is the nearest. In 1956 Tomas Cloma together with his brothers and 40 crew explored the Spratlys and claimed to have "discovered" and occupied 53 islands and reefs of the Spratlys. They proclaimed "formal ownership" over them and renamed these islands and reefs the Kalayaan (Freedomland) Island Group.

The Philippine act was immediately met with protests from PRC, Taiwan, Saigon as well as France. The PRC denounced Tomas Cloma alleged "discovery" as totally groundless. Manila responded to Taipei and Saigon that it had no claims on the Spratlys [1, p11]. Since th Taiwan sent troops to the Islands to patrol the Spratly Islands and stationed on Itu Aba Island to prevent further such allegations.

In early July 1971, the Philippine government alleged that the Taiwanese troops on the Itu Aba Island "fired on a boat carrying a Philippine congressman". After this the Philippine government announced on July 10 1971 that "it had sent a diplomatic note to Taipei asking that the Chinese garrison be withdrawn from Itua Aba". Manila stated that 53 islands and reefs once occupied by Tomas Cloma should belong to the Philippines, because the area was terra nullius at the time of its occupation and was "acquired according to the modes of acquisition recognized under international law, among which are occupation and effective administration". [3] Meanwhile the Philippines sent its navy to occupy Thitu Island and Nanshan Island. In April 1972, the Philippines government incorporated the "Kalayaan" group into Palawan Province as a municipality.

In February 1974, the Philippines government stated that the Philippines forces had occupied five islets of the Spratlys. The Philippines government justified its occupation of the Spratly Islands as "the strategic importance of the Kalayaan area to the Philippine security". [

By 1978 the Philippines had occupied two more islands, and later the Philippines further occupied Siling Jiao (Commodore Reef), in 19 they occupied Liyue Tan (Reed Bank). On June 11, 1978, Filipino president Marcos signed a Presidential Decree 1596 which claimed t Kalayaan group. The 1978 decree omitted Spratly Island and include Amboyna Cay which was not claimed by Cloma. It also said that "some countries claimed some parts of this area but they had given up and thus the claims are not valid anymore..." [4] On July 17, 1978, a Presidential Decree 1599 was issued, proclaiming that the Kalayaan Group was within Philippine EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone).

3. Was the Spratlys res nullius before any Filipino claims?

The Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of res nullius. The definition of res nullius is "A thing which has no owner or A thing which has been abandoned by its owner is as much res nullius as if it had never belonged to any one."

Japan unconditionally surrendered in 1945 after their defeat in the World War II. Towards the end of 1946, the Chinese government sen naval task force consisting of four warships to the Spratlys and Paracels to execute demonstrative possessor acts on the spot. The task force sailed from Guangdong (Canton) on December 9, 1946. The two war ships Taiping and Zhongye set course for the Spratlys and after 3 days' sailing, they reached Itu Aba Island, the principal island of the Spratlys on the morning of December 12, 1946. They immediately sent telegraphs to Nanjing to report on their arrival and later stationed on the Itu Aba Island. The Itu Aba Island was surveyed. The task force also reached and surveyed other Spratly Islands including Nanyue Island, Thitu Island, North Danger Reef etc The symbols of Japanese sovereignty were removed and a Sovereignty Stone Marker was placed on the Itu Aba Island. They also held take-over ceremony.

In December 1947 Territorial Administration Section of Ministry of Internal Affairs published a list of South China Sea Islands Names and a Map of South China Sea Islands. The Itu Aba Island is renamed to Taiping Island, the Thitu Island is renamed to Zhongye Island, the commanders name of the task force is also used as a name of a Sand Cay (Dunqian Shazhou). So has China ever abandoned her ownership over the Spratlys? No. The Chinese government has never relinquished its claim to these islands. After the "Kingdom of Humantiy and Republic of Songhrati-Morac-Meads" issue Taiwan has restored the garrison on Taiping Island and the navy has frequently patrolled the Spratlys.

Just like what is expressed in Taipei's response to the Philippines: The world has been on notice for years and years that China has a garrison on the Islands. It is childishly naive to entertain any notion that Cloma and associates' claim to "right of discovery" can serve a the legal basis for Philippine government's claiming and the actions as announced by President Marcos. The pursuit of an private and official claim to the Spratly Islands should be held to be a violation of international law and a provocation to China.[1, p71]

4. Is Geography Proximity a legal Basis for Philippine's claim in the Spratlys?

There is no international law saying geographical proximity can be used here to justify its claims in the Kalayaan Island Group. If we u the proximity basis, many isolated islands in Sulu Sea are much closer to Borneo than to the Philippines, should the Philippines give the islands to Malaysia or Brunei?

5. Is National Security a legal basis for the Filipino Claim?

If Philippines national security can serve as a legal basis for its claim in the Spratly Islands. Does that mean the Philippines will just invade any other nation's sovereign land if they feel that they are not secure?

6. Conclusion

The Philippine's claims in the Spratly Islands, is not legal, although the Philippines try to base their claims on different bases. The Spra was not res nullius, and the Philippines' claims based on geographic proximity and national security are illegal.

[1]Hsiao Chi-Ching, The Nanshas (Spratlys) Disputes, 1999, p19 [2] Ji Guoxing, The Spratlys Disputes and Prospects for Settlement, ISIS Issue Paper, 1992, p7 [3] A James Gregor, "In the Shadow of Giants, the Major Powers and Security of Southeast Asia", p91-92, Hoover Institute, Stanford University, 1989. [4] Alileen S.P. Baviera edited, The South China Sea Disputes: Philippine Perspectives, Philippine China Development Resources Cent and Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, Manila, 1992. [5] Chen Hurng Yu, The South China Sea Islands' Sovereignty and International Conflicts, p89, You Shi Culture Enterprise Co, Taipei 1987

The Spratlys
By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. Philippine Daily Inquirer 4:38 am | Monday, July 25th, 2011 9 share142 109 To begin to understand the controversy over the South China Sea, a helpful backgrounder is a book by Rodolfo C. Severino, Where in the World is the Philippines? Chapter 5 of the book is about the South China Sea controversy. But if you are looking for a solution to the problem, you probably will not find it there. Nevertheless let us see the beginning of the story in brief. During World War II Japan had occupied the Spratly Islands. From there Japan had launched its attacks against the countries in the region. If Japan had won the war, Japan would be a major

actor in the contest over the South China Sea and would probably be lording it over the rest. But Japan lost. The Treaty of Peace of 1951 ending the war was signed in San Francisco by 49 nations. By this treaty Japan renounced all claim over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. The Philippines and Vietnam were parties to the treaty, but neither Mainland China nor Taiwan was. The Treaty, however, is no help to the settling of the current controversy. The Treaty does not say which country should have a legal claim over the island. A subsequent treaty between Tokyo and Taipei and a still later Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Tokyo and Beijing do not touch on the territorial issue either. Thus the squabbling remains until today. How did the Philippines get involved? It started with Tomas Cloma, a Filipino educator and entrepreneur, who had planned to open an ice plant and cannery in one of the islands. But Cloma went beyond his interest in an ice plant and a cannery. In 1956 he sent a private training ship on an expedition to the islands. Subsequently he released a Notice to the Whole World claiming a vast area of the South China Sea which included the Kalayaan islands. He also sent a letter to the secretary of foreign affairs of the Philippines, Carlos P. Garcia, that with a crew of about 50 persons he was undertaking a survey and occupation of an area outside of Philippine territory and belonging to no one. Shortly thereafter he called the area Freedomland. Cloma stressed that the claim had not been made by the Philippines but was being made by himself as a Filipino citizen. He followed this with what may be called a constitution for the area prescribing a form of government and incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Philippine Bill of Rights. By these acts he said that he hoped to deter other nations from claiming the territory. Although the Philippine government under Ramon Magsaysay was taking all this as a comic opera, it was serious enough to provoke protests from Taiwan, Beijing and Vietnam. Beijing even took naval action against the Cloma activities. And when Cloma wrote a letter to the Philippine secretary of foreign affairs reporting Taiwanese activities in the area, the secretary in 1956 expressed the view that the islands were res nullius. He said that the Philippine government considered the islands to be under the de facto trusteeship of the Allied Powers since there had been no territorial settlement by those same Powers. The winds of change in the Philippines began in 1971 under President Marcos. The government expressed concern about the security implications of what was happening in the area. Taiwanese forces were reported to have occupied some islands. While maintaining that the area was res nullius and that no state could introduce troops into the area without the consent of the Allied forces, the Philippine government nevertheless maintained that such res nullius could be acquired by occupation and effective administration. Marcos in fact announced that the Philippine government was in occupation and effective administration of some islands. Naturally protests came from Taipei and Beijing.

Things became more complicated in 1971 when Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo recommended more development of the area and the augmentation of the military forces already deployed there. Moreover, the foreign affairs undersecretary had asserted in the Seabed Committee of the UN that the Philippines was in effective occupation of Kalayaan Islands. Protest, however, came not just from China and Taipei but also from within. A former Philippine diplomat wrote to President Marcos claiming that what the government was doing contradicted a commitment made by Secretary Garcia in 1957 that the Philippines recognized the Free Territory of Freedomland. This internal conflict, however, seemed to find a solution in a Deed of Assignment and Waiver of all rights won by Cloma over the islands through development and effective occupation. But biographers of Cloma claimed that the Deed had been executed under duress and in exchange for the release of the aging Cloma after 57 days in detention in Camp Crame during martial law. Thus, in the freer atmosphere after Edsa I, Tomas Cloma & Associates submitted a claim to President Cory Aquino asking for reimbursement of expenses incurred from 1947 to 1974 in the exploration, occupation, development, administration, organization and settlement of Freedomland. What this seems to mean is that Tomas Cloma & Associates have already affirmed that a transfer of rights had indeed been made to the Philippine government. But what did Tomas Cloma & Associates transfer? China, Taiwan and Vietnam are asserting that Nemo dat quod non habet. Only the UN can settle this controversy authoritatively; but no one wants to accompany the Philippines to the UN.