China and the EU have shared strategic interests in maintaining the freedom and safety of navigation and promoting

stability and prosperity in the South China Sea area.

China and the EU are not disputing parties to each other, and the South China Sea issue is not an issue between the two.

China is firmly committed to resolving disputes in the South China Sea peacefully through friendly consultations and
negotiations with countries concerned. (Photo: Mission of China to the EU)

We sincerely hope the EU will strictly abide by its political commitment of respecting China's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and position on the South China Sea issue and refrain from taking any action that constitutes interference in the
dispute. We also hope that the EU will play a constructive role by supporting the resolution of the disputes through
negotiation between the directly concerned parties, and support the efforts of China and ASEAN to maintain peace and
stability in the South China Sea.

Real issue is dispute over territorial sovereignty

The South China Sea issue has attracted much attention and media coverage.

Some accused China of changing the status quo in the South China Sea by taking unilateral actions that caused tensions in
the region.

Some claimed that China's refusal to recognise and accept the "award" on the South China Sea issued by the Arbitral
Tribunal and established at the unilateral request of the Philippines would be "in violation of international law".

These arguments are biased and unjustified.

As the waters of the South China Sea dispute have been so muddied up by certain intentional forces, it is highly necessary to
help those who are truly interested in the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea to get the facts and
essence of the matter straight.

China enjoys sovereignty over the South China Sea Island (the Xisha, Nansha, Zhongsha and Dongsha Islands) and the
adjacent waters since ancient times.

The Nansha Islands comprise over 230 islands, islets, sandbanks, rocks and shoals that are scattered along a 1,000 kilometer
span from the southeast to the northwest of the Sea. This area was discovered and named by China as the Nansha Islands,
over which China has continuously exercised sovereignty in a peaceful, effective and uninterrupted manner.
Beginning in the 20th century, western colonial powers, including France and Japan, coveted the Nansha Islands as they
colonised Southeast Asia and invaded China. Due to strong resistance from China, most of their territorial ambitions ended
in failure.

The Cairo Declaration of November 1943 proclaimed that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific and that all
the territories Japan stole from the Chinese shall be restored to China. The 1945 Potsdam Declaration reiterated the
proclamation of the Cairo Declaration.

It has been widely recognised by the international community that the Nansha Islands and the adjacent waters belong to
China, and no country ever challenged this during a long course of history.

It was only since the 1960s and 1970s, especially after the discovery of abundant oil reserves in the Nansha waters and the
coming into being of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), that some countries in the region
illegally occupied 42 of China's islands and reefs as part of the Nansha Islands in violation of the charter and fundamental
principles of governing international relations.

Based on this history, it can only be concluded that: 1. China is the victim of the South China Sea issue; 2. the real disputes
are centered on sovereignty and rights over the Nansha Islands and the adjacent waters caused by illegal occupation; and 3.
the other is the dispute over maritime delimitation caused by overlapping claims of maritime jurisdiction.

Territorial sovereignty dispute is beyond the scope of UNCLOS

There is the argument that the Philippines initiated the arbitration, in line with international law, and that it did not request
the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on the issue of sovereignty but only to decide that some features in the South China Sea are
low-tide elevations incapable of generating any maritime entitlement.

But there is more than meets the eye. The South China Sea arbitration against China is very deceptive. Abundant evidence
has shown that the Philippines is actually focusing on territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Its true objective is
to deny China's sovereignty over maritime features of the Nansha Islands and to legitimize its unlawful stealing of maritime
features of the islands.

So before talking of respecting and acting in accordance with international law, one needs clarify in the first place the
subject matter in question and its essence and what international law is all about.

The South China Sea dispute is centred on territorial sovereignty. But the settlement of such kind of dispute is beyond the
scope of UNCLOS and its arbitration procedures; and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention.
Therefore, China seeks bilateral negotiation on the issue rather than third-party dispute settlement mechanisms.
As a basic principle of arbitration, for an arbitral award to be recognized and implemented, the arbitral tribunal that renders
the award must have jurisdiction over the disputes. If the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the arbitration proceedings shall not be
continued. Even if they are carried forward, the decision would be invalid.

Application of compulsory arbitration is subject to preconditions

Compulsory arbitration is a new procedure established under UNCLOS and is subsidiary and complementary to negotiation
and consultation. Its application is subject to several preconditions.

XU Hong, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, points out
four preconditions for parties to initiate compulsory arbitration and for the arbitral tribunal to establish its jurisdiction.

First, compulsory arbitration can only be applied to disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the convention.
If the subject matters are beyond the scope of UNCLOS, the disputes shall not be settled by compulsory arbitration. The
issue of territorial sovereignty is one such case. Consequently states shall not initiate compulsory arbitration on disputes
concerning it; and even if they do, the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over them.

Second, a party to UNCLOS may declare in writing that it does not accept compulsory arbitration with respect to disputes
concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities, etc. Such exclusions are
effective for other parties. With respect to disputes excluded by one party, other parties to the dispute shall not initiate
compulsory arbitration; and even if it does, the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over them.

China's 2006 Declaration on Optional Exceptions made in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS excludes disputes
concerning maritime delimitation and some other issues from the dispute settlement procedures. The unilateral initiation of
arbitration by the Philippines is a violation of China's right to seek dispute settlement of its own choice.

Third, if parties to a dispute have agreed on other means of settlement, no party shall unilaterally initiate compulsory
arbitration; and even if it does, the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over the disputes. Given that China and the
Philippines have agreed to settle their disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations, the Philippines is precluded
from initiating arbitration unilaterally.

Fourth, parties to a dispute are obliged to first exchange views on the means of dispute settlement. If a party fails to fulfill
this obligation, it shall not initiate compulsory arbitration; if they do, the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over the
disputes. The Philippines failed to fulfill the obligation of exchanging views with China on the means of dispute settlement.

The reason why China neither accepts nor participates in the arbitration lies in the fact that the Arbitration Tribunal does not
have jurisdiction over the issue and is illegal from the start. The so-called "award" issued by the tribunal does not have any
legal validity. China is exercising its rights under international law and abiding by international rule of law.
China maintains and defends its legitimate position

Some people seem concerned about freedom of navigation and about militarization and over-flight in the South China Sea.
Some have alleged that China's island reclamations and construction work on its maritime features in the South China Sea is
the main source of instability. But these perceptions are wrong.

China has been transparent about its actions in parts of the Nansha islands and reefs. It is nothing but maintenance and
construction work needed to optimise their functions; improve the living and working conditions of personnel stationed
there; preserve territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests; conducting maritime search and rescue, disaster
prevention and mitigation; science and research; and other areas.

The maintenance and construction work does not target or affect any other country, nor does it impact the freedom of
navigation and over-flight in the South China Sea. There has not been any complaints from the commercial shipping
industry about inconveniences or insecurity and there has not been any increases in shipping insurance rates. Facts speak for
themselves.

Stability is very much of Chinese interest. A huge volume of China's import and export and energy supply travel through
the South China Sea. China is more concerned than anybody else about freedom of navigation and over-flight in the area.

China is concerned about the real root cause of the continuing tension in the South China Sea, in particular the serious
provocations by the United States politically and militarily.

The United States has asserted that it is against militarising the South China Sea. Yet, it has been sending more and more
military vessels and aircrafts in close proximity to China's coastal waters, constituting grave threats to China's security on
land and sea and threatening to escalate tensions in Asia.

Increasingly more Chinese people believe that the U.S. is no longer just an invisible hand behind the rising tension in the
South China Sea. They are afraid that the deployments by the U.S., if not curbed, can only result in militarising the region.

Freedom of navigation, a concept originally conceived by the U.S. as a counter-measure against the freedom of navigation
defined by the Convention, has been conveniently used by the U.S. to justify its military actions in the South China Sea and
the freedom of movement of its navy around the world.

Equally disturbing is that the statements and actions by the U.S. would probably embolden some players to be even more
aggressive and provocative.

It has been made public that the U.S. alliance obligations would be invoked if China responds to such provocations. As
pointed out by H.E. Ambassador Cui Tiankai, "It could be possible that all this is intended to intimidate China, not to start a
real conflict. But what if China is not intimidated? This approach is clearly a path to conflict. It is indeed a dangerous path
and an irresponsible policy."

A peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation

China has consistently maintained its position in the South China Sea dispute, that is safeguarding national territorial
integrity and maintaining regional peace and tranquility.

It has been firmly committed to resolving disputes peacefully through friendly consultations and negotiations with countries
directly concerned.

Since the late 1990s, China has proactively engaged with some of the ASEAN parties, through bilateral consultation, to
resolve sovereignty disputes over islands and reefs in question in order to maintain peace and stability in the region.

I am proud to say that as head of the Chinese delegation taking part in the first few rounds of Working Group Meetings to
draft the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), I myself contributed in a small measure to
such a significant endeavor.

From my personal experience working with ASEAN and its member states, China and ASEAN countries have the wisdom
and capability to resolve disputes peacefully and maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea on their own.

China is working with ASEAN countries to implement the DOC and we are expediting the code of conduct in the South
China Sea consultation.

With a view of securing common interests and objectives to ensure long-lasting peace and stability in the area, China has a
few proposals.

Firstly, the disputing parties must peacefully resolve their disputes through negotiation in accordance with the DOC. Article
4 of the DOC makes it clear that the dispute must be resolved by the directly concerned states. The leaders of China and ten
ASEAN countries signed off on the DOC, which is a binding commitment.

But regrettably, the Philippines has closed the door of dialogue with China. Still, China and other ASEAN countries are
doing its best to implement Article 4 of the DOC.

Secondly, countries in the region, claimants or otherwise, that border the South China Sea must work together to maintain
peace and stability and uphold the freedom of navigation in accordance with international law. China has played and will
continue to play its responsible and constructive role.
Thirdly, it is hoped that countries outside of the region support the resolution of the disputes through negotiation between
the directly concerned parties and support the efforts by China and ASEAN to maintain peace and stability in the area.
Countries outside the region could play a constructive role.

"The future direction would very much depend on the perceptions and choices of the parties involved. If they choose to
cooperate, they may all win. If they choose to confront each other, they may only head for impasse or even conflict and no
one can benefit totally," said Ms. Fu Ying and Mr. Wu Shichun in their article contributed to the National Interest.

TEAM PHILIPPINES. The Philippine team poses in the Peace Palace at The Hague, Netherlands, before the start of
the oral arguments in connection with the arbitration case against China. Photo courtesy of DFA

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines' case against China over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) boils down to 5
basic arguments.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario outlined these claims on Tuesday, July 7, the first day of arguments at The Hague.
(READ: Philippines vows to smash China's strongest argument)

For the oral hearings that run until July 13, we've listed these 5 arguments, quoted verbatim from Del Rosario.

Below each argument, we've added our own notes to explain things in a nutshell. We've also included links to other stories for
further reading and reference.

The Philippines' arguments revolve around the right to fish, as well as to exploit other resources, in the West Philippine Sea.
(READ: PH vs China at The Hague: '80% of fish' at stake)

This right is based on the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).

Under UNCLOS, a coastal state has the exclusive right to fish within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an area 200 nautical
miles from the coastal state's baselines or edges.

1. China's 'historical rights'

ARGUMENT: "First, that China is not entitled to exercise what it refers to as 'historic rights' over the waters, seabed, and subsoil
beyond the limits of its entitlements under the Convention."

EXPLANATION: China says the South China Sea has belonged to it for centuries. This is why it claims "historical rights" over
the disputed sea.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, says that "even if true," these historical rights
have no bearing on sea disputes under UNCLOS. Carpio explains that UNCLOS "extinguished all historical rights of other states."
This UN convention instead gives each coastal state an EEZ. (READ: Top Philippine judge uses Chinese maps vs China)

2. China's 9-dash line

ARGUMENT: "Second, that the so-called 9-dash line has no basis whatsoever under international law insofar as it purports to
define the limits of China’s claim to 'historic rights.'"

EXPLANATION: The 9-dash line is China's demarcation to claim virtually the entire South China Sea. China says this is based
on its "historical rights."
The Philippines, however, asserts that the 9-dash line is baseless under UNCLOS. This UN convention allows an EEZ, not a 9-
dash line. (READ: No such thing as 9-dash line – US envoy)

3. Rocks vs islands

ARGUMENT: "Third, that the various maritime features relied upon by China as a basis upon which to assert its claims in the
South China Sea are not islands that generate entitlement to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. Rather, some are
'rocks' within the meaning of Article 121, paragraph 3; others are low-tide elevations; and still others are permanently submerged.
As a result, none are capable of generating entitlements beyond 12NM (nautical miles), and some generate no entitlements at all.
China’s recent massive reclamation activities cannot lawfully change the original nature and character of these features."

EXPLANATION: Under UNCLOS, habitable islands can generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ. Rocks cannot.

China describes some features in the South China Sea as islands. One of these is Panatag Shoal (Scarborough Shoal), a rocky
sandbar. China claims these supposed islands.

China also says these "islands" generate an EEZ, which could overlap with the EEZ of the Philippines. The problem for the
Philippines is, China declared in 2006 that it "does not accept" arbitral jurisdiction when it comes to overlapping EEZs. UNCLOS
allows this exception.

This is partly why China says the tribunal at The Hague has no right to hear the Philippine case – because it supposedly involves
overlapping EEZs.

"The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China boils down to whether there are overlapping EEZs between the
Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea," Senior Associate Justice Carpio says.

Carpio, however, explains that "China has no EEZ that overlaps with the Philippines' EEZ in the Scarborough area." Carpio also
believes an international tribunal "will deny Itu Aba," the largest island in the Spratlys, an EEZ. (READ: Why China calls it
Huangyan Island)

The Philippines adds that China's reclamation activities cannot "lawfully change" rocks into islands.

4. Breach of the law of the sea

ARGUMENT: "Fourth, that China has breached the Convention by interfering with the Philippines’ exercise of its sovereign
rights and jurisdiction."

EXPLANATION: China prevents Filipinos from fishing in the West Philippine Sea. UNCLOS, on the other hand, gives Filipinos
the exclusive rights to fish within the Philippines' EEZ in the disputed waters. (READ: PH fisherfolk: Living with Chinese coast
guard's hostility)

5. Damage to environment

ARGUMENT: "China has irreversibly damaged the regional marine environment, in breach of UNCLOS, by its destruction of
coral reefs in the South China Sea, including areas within the Philippines’ EEZ, by its destructive and hazardous fishing practices,
and by its harvesting of endangered species."

EXPLANATION: China is building artificial islands in the West Philippine Sea. The Philippines says China's reclamation
activities have buried 311 hectares of coral reefs – around 7 times the size of Vatican City. This can mean P4.8 billion ($106.29
million) in lost economic benefits. At the same time, China is accused of poaching. (READ: PH: China 'irreversibly damaged'
environment)

China, for its part, refuses to answer the Philippines' arguments in arbitration proceedings. It has instead published a position
paper debunking the Philippines' claims.
In the end, the Philippines says, the case at The Hague is set to provide a long-term solution to the sea dispute. (READ: FULL
TEXT: The Philippines' opening salvo at The Hague)

For Del Rosario, UNCLOS provisions "allow the weak to challenge the powerful on an equal footing, confident in the conviction
that principles trump power; that law triumphs over force; and that right prevails over might." – Rappler.com

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines is set to slam China before a UN-backed tribunal Tuesday, July 7,
with a practical issue at stake: the Philippines' right to fish in the disputed South China Sea.

For starters, the Philippines needs to smash China's strongest argument. China asserts that the arbitral
tribunal at The Hague, The Netherlands, has no right to hear the historic case over the disputed waters. The
Philippines has until Monday, July 13, to debunk China's claim.

If the court decides it has jurisdiction, Manila can present the merits of its case at a future date.

"The issue here is whether the Philippines will keep 80% of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South
China Sea, or we lose it to China," Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court
told Rappler's Maria Ressa.

"If we lose 80% of our EEZ in the South China Sea, that means we lose 80% of the fish we catch annually in
the South China Sea," Carpio said in the Rappler interview on June 27.

The EEZ is an area 200 nautical miles from a coastal state's baselines or edges. Within the EEZ, the coastal
state has the exclusive right to fish and to exploit other resources.

The Philippines, then, will lose much of its traditional fishing grounds if it fails before the tribunal. (Watch
the full interview below.)

MANILA, Philippines – Debunking China's “historical lies” about its claims over the South China Sea, a
Philippine Supreme Court (SC) justice used China's favorite pieces of evidence – its ancient maps – against
the Asian giant itself.

In a speech at the De La Salle University in Manila on Friday, June 6, Senior Associate Justice Antonio
Carpio of the Philippine Supreme Court said China's ancient maps dating back to 960 AD show that its
territory “never included” the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal in the West Philippine Sea – portions
of the South China Sea claimed by the Philippines.

Carpio pointed out that both official and unofficial maps show that China's southernmost territory "has
always been Hainan Island.”

“There is not a single ancient Chinese map, whether made by Chinese or foreigners, showing that the
Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were ever part of Chinese territory. To repeat, in all these ancient Chinese
maps, the southernmost Chinese territory has always been Hainan Island,” Carpio said.

No bearing on sea disputes

China has cited its so-called historical rights to uphold its 9-dash line, a demarcation it uses to claim
virtually the entire South China Sea.

“Even if true,” however, Carpio said these historical rights have no bearing on maritime disputes under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The Philippines invokes UNCLOS in its historic case against China over the South China

MANILA, Philippines – "There is no such thing as 9-dash line," United States ambassador to the Philippines
Philip Goldberg told reporters on Monday, February 24, reiterating his country's rejection of China's basis
for claiming portions of the South China Sea that are closer to the Philippines.

"We do not believe that the 9-dash line claim passes the legal test for determining or resolving disputes over
South China Sea matters," Goldberg said during the annual prospects forum of the Foreign Correspondents
Association of the Philippines in Makati City.

The ambassador was reiterating the statement of US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs Daniel Russel before the US Congress earlier in February.

Russel's statement is considered the first time that the US publicly rejected China's 9-dash line claim in the
South China Sea. More US policymakers and military officers have since issued strong statements against
China's aggressiveness. (WATCH: Expect stronger US message VS China's aggression)

The US supports the move of the Philippines to bring the maritime disputes to the United Nations body, the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

The US maintains it is not taking sides on the maritime disputes but it has taken a position against any
unilateral move to change the status quo. The US also opposes the establishment of the Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea and similar attempts to do the same over the West
Philippines Sea.

Treaty allies, the US and the Philippines are finalizing a military-to-military agreement that will increase the
presence of American troops in the Philippines. The Philippines sought the help of the US against the
backdrop of escalating sea tensions.

"We want to conclude the agreement as soon as we can. There are still some details to work out. We have
made progress in the agreement. We want to conclude it as quickly as possible but I won't set the date," said
Goldberg.

Goldberg said the US military commits to continue helping the Philippines in terms of disaster relief,
maritime security, peacekeeping, defense reform, and human rights.

"The Philippines has embarked on a program to build a minimum credible defense as is the right of
sovereign nations. The US supports that effort. Nations need to be able to protect their borders and defend
their people not just from traditional aggression but from transnational crime, smuggling, and international
terrorism," Goldberg said.

The request of the Philippines coincides with the US strategy to rebalance to the Asia Pacific. Goldberg said
the US wants to deepen alliance with the Philippines for the following interests: commercial, people to
people, military and strategic ties.

"Note the order in which I put those priorities. If you think about the genesis of the rebalance, it starts on the
recognition of the rise of Asia – the rise of China and Southeast Asia in terms of economic growth,
population growth, and trade," he explained. – Rappler.com

MANILA, Philippines – No, it's not a simple difference in usage.

China gives the name Huangyan Island to the disputed Scarborough Shoal due to reasons that can benefit it
in its territorial claims, said marine law expert Jay Batongbacal.

A University of the Philippines professor, Batongbacal joined a panel of experts Friday, April 27, in a
Senate foreign affairs committee hearing on the Scarborough Shoal standoff.

In an interview with Rappler after the hearing, Batongbacal identified two main reasons why China calls the
disputed area Huangyan Island. (The Philippines, on the other hand, calls it Bajo de Masinloc. Read:
Scarborough Shoal according to Manila, Beijing.)

'More advantageous'

First, he said, China usually makes no distinctions between islands that are above the water, and features that
are underwater. Their definition of an island is therefore wider.

He said the Chinese consider Scarborough Shoal as part of what they call the Zhongsha Islands or
Archipelago. “But if you look at their maps, what is Zhongsha Islands? Most of it is underwater... Actually
only Bajo de Masinloc has anything that is above water at high tide,” Batongbacal said.

Second, to call Scarborough Shoal an island is the “more advantageous” position for China.

The “island” tag can entitle it to a wider scope of waters, Batongbacal said.

Based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) and subject to certain conditions,
an island or land territory is entitled to the following waters:
  a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles (NM), with such a sea defined by the UN as a “belt of sea
adjacent to a State's coast;”

 a contiguous, or adjacent, zone of up to 24 NM from the State's baselines or “edges” from which the
breadth of the territorial sea is measured;

 an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of up to 200 NM from the baselines, within which a State has the
sovereign rights to explore and exploit, and conserve and manage natural resources, among others;
and

 a continental shelf comprising the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas 200 NM from the
baselines

“If you want to maximize your land area as well as your water area, you would want as many islands as
possible,” Batongbacal explained.

The Unclos, however, makes a reservation. “Rocks which cannot sustain habitation or economic life of their
own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf,” the Unclos says.

Island vs shoal

The UN defines an island as a “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at
high tide.”

A shoal, on the other hand, is basically a rocky sandbar. (Read: 10 Scarborough Facts for Pinoys.)

In its position paper on Scarborough Shoal, the Philippines asserts that the disputed area is not an island, but
a ring-shaped coral reef with several rocks encircling a lagoon.

DISPUTE CONTINUES. How will the Philippines and China settle the issue?

Like the Philippines, a number of foreign scholars have disputed the claim that Scarborough Shoal, or what
is also called Scarborough Reef, is part of Zhongsha Islands.

Their position is based on possibly varying interpretations of the Chinese term for the area, “Zhongsha
Qundao,” said the National University of Singapore's Zou Keyuan.

“As a result, care should be exercised in the use of the names of islands in the South China Sea,” Zou said.

Contentious points
Even the Unclos provision against EEZs for rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own, according to Zou, has some complications.

The Unclos does not give the exact meaning of “rocks,” “human habitation,” and “economic life of their
own,” leading to different interpretations, Zou said.

“Some scholars suggest that only islands which have shown the ability to sustain stable human populations
of at least 50 people should be allowed to generate maritime zones,” Zou wrote. “Under such a suggestion,
Scarborough Reef clearly lacks the capability to have its own extended maritime zones including an EEZ
because of its size at high tide and lack of permanent inhabitants.”

“On the other hand,” Zou said, “it should be realized that due to the ambiguity in the expressions of the
above-mentioned (Unclos) provision, it could be argued that islets like Scarborough Reef may have the
capability to generate their own maritime zones including an EEZ.”

This is one of the contentious points for the Philippines and China, the scholar said.

Muddling the issue, too, is “China's refusal to define its claim to the waters in the South China Sea,” said top
diplomat Rodolfo Severino in a Thought Leaders piece for Rappler.

Nonetheless, experts agree the Philippines and China should settle their differences – in defining their claims
or in other concerns – diplomatically. – Rappler.com

MANILA, Philippines – One territory, 2 stories.

It is a place internationally known as Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines calls it Panatag Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc.
China calls it Huangyan Island.

The 2 countries' ongoing standoff over Scarborough Shoal has dragged their relationship “to its lowest ebb for
years,” according to Chinese state media.

Each country tells a different story about the disputed territory in position papers recently released to the public.

Since Yuan dynasty

For China, Scarborough Shoal's story begins in year 1279 under its Yuan dynasty. That was around 240 years before
the Philippines even had a written history.

YUAN DYNASTY. A survey of seas for Yuan emperor Kublai Khan begins Scarborough Shoal's history for China.

Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing then surveyed the seas around China for Yuan emperor Kublai Khan. Guo chose
Scarborough or Huangyan Island “as the point (sic) in the South China Sea.”

China has since included Huangyan Island in its official maps, and in its provinces like Guangdong and later, Hainan.
The country says it has also declared its sovereignty over Huangyan Island in all its announcements and statements
on the South China Sea.
“All these happened long before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) came into force in
1994,” it notes, referring to the international convention governing maritime affairs.

Scarborough Shoal is theirs, the mainland asserts, because it was China that first discovered it, named it,
incorporated it into its territory, and exercised jurisdiction over it.

In addition, China says it has “long been developing and exploiting Huangyan Island,” explaining its fishermen
consider the area traditional fishing grounds.

CHINESE BOATMEN. The Philippine-China standoff began after the Philippine Navy caught Chinese fishermen like Xu
Detan (in photo) in Scarborough Shoal. Screen grab from news.xinhuanet.com

The Philippines never laid claim over Huangyan Island until 1997, China says.

International treaties like the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the country explains, do not include Huangyan Island in
Philippine territory. Even Philippine maps in 1981 and 1984, among others, reportedly exclude Huangyan Island.

“The above facts fully prove that Huangyan Island is outside the scope of Philippine territory,” China says.

From Spanish map

Over 400 years after China discovered it, a different story of Scarborough Shoal begins to form in the Philippines.

One of the earliest and most accurate Philippine maps, published in 1734, depicts the now-disputed area as part of
Zambales in the Philippines. Made by Spanish Jesuit priest Pedro Murillo Velarde, the map names the shoal Bajo de
Masinloc.

MURILLO MAP. One of the first records of Scarborough Shoal in the Philippines comes from a map by a Jesuit priest.
Screen grab from zamboanga.net

The name, which came from Spanish colonizers, literally means “under Masinloc” – a province of Zambales. (Read
more: 10 Scarborough Facts for Pinoys.)

Bajo de Masinloc later became a site of Philippine activities and has been the subject of certain laws. This, said the
Philippines' position paper, means the country “has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction
over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.”

The Philippine position paper enumerates activities like the installment of Philippine flags on Scarborough Shoal in
1965 and 1997; the construction of a lighthouse on one of the shoal's islets in 1965; its use for defense purposes;
and its classification as a regime of islands under the amended Archipelagic Baselines Law in 2009.

International law expert Harry Roque says effective occupation refers to “any evidence that there is a sovereign
exercising its powers over the territory,” while effective jurisdiction refers to the “exercise of legal competence.”

Effective occupation and jurisdiction refer to land, however, and are not covered by Unclos. Since the land of Bajo de
Masinloc is merely composed of rocks, the more significant part of the Philippines' claim, Roque explains, is the sea.

ROCKY SANDBAR. The Philippines and China fight over Scarborough Shoal due to its potential for natural resources,
among other things.

The Philippines stresses its ownership of the waters within the vicinity of Bajo de Masinloc covered by the country's
200-nautical-mile (NM) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf.

Based on the Unclos, the EEZ is the area 200 NM from the country's baselines or “edges” within which it has the
sovereign rights to explore and exploit, and conserve and manage natural resources, among others.

Meanwhile, the continental shelf comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas 200 NM from the
country's baselines.
Bajo de Masinloc is 124 NM from the nearest coast of Luzon and 472 NM from the nearest coast of China. This
means Bajo de Masinloc falls within the Philippines' 200-NM EEZ and continental shelf.

“Bajo de Masinloc is an integral part of Philippine territory,” the Philippines says.

DISPUTE CONTINUES. How will the Philippines and China settle the issue?

Ongoing standoff

The standoff between the Philippines and China over alleged territorial incursions on Scarborough Shoal has gone on
for over a week now.

In one of the latest developments, China has rejected the Philippines' invitation to bring the issue to the
International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea – “the great equalizer,” as far as the Philippines is concerned.

The Philippines and China have accused each other of aggravating tension in the area. The 2 countries, however,
have repeatedly said they want to end this issue peacefully. – Rappler.com

Historical treachery never allows mention of Chinese Yuan Dynasty's invasion and failure in the China Sea when their
forces were repelled in Java of Indonesia by the founder of Majapahit Empire. The Ming Dynasty that followed
disbanded their huge navy and oversea venture for lack of economic gains and banned maritime trade with their self
isolation Haijin Edict. These facts are being hidden and erased by Chinese historians along with those secretly
working with them to assert their version of false history.

Based on applicable international maritime and related laws,

China knows that if she petitions the United Nations International Court of
Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to affirm
her dubious claim that she owns everything in the South China Sea aka West
Philippine Sea — her chances of winning are about as likely as having a snowfall
in the Sahara desert.

Both Courts have proper jurisdictions to settle sovereignty

issues between nations regarding marine territories — such as those
concerning the Spratly and Paracel islands.

Let’s imagine what most likely would happen if

China does take her case to the International Court of Justice and the
representative of China — let’s call him Mr. Lee — is before the Court headed
by the Presiding Judge. Consider this scenario:

Judge: “Please inform this Court of the basis

for your claim that the entire South China Sea aka West Philippine Sea belongs
completely to the People’s Republic of China?”

Mr. Lee: “Thank you, your honor. Our claim is based on

the historical fact that this entire area has belonged to us since the Han
Dynasty.”

Judge: “How do you intend to prove your case?”

Mr. Lee: “I will present to this Court an almost two

thousand year old Han Dynasty map that indicates the limits of the Han Dynasty
kingdom.”

Judge: “Let’s assume for purposes of discussion

that the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and other surrounding
countries were provinces or part of the Han Dynasty during its time even if the
map you hold may just actually be a navigational map which does not really
define the limits of the Han Dynasty. Now my study of China’s history
indicate that the Han Dynasty lasted from 206 B.C. To 220 A.D. Is this
correct?”

Mr. Lee: “Yes your honor.”

Judge: “I assume Mr. Lee that you are familiar with

Alexander the Great, the young Macedonian king who conquered much of the
ancient world.”

Mr. Lee: “I am, your honor.”

Judge: “At the time of his death in 323 B.C., Alexander’s

kingdom included Greece, Syria, Persia now known as Iran, Egypt and a part of
India. Are you aware Mr. Lee that Macedonia, Alexander’s country — is now known
as the Republic of Macedonia?”

Mr. Lee: “If you say so your honor.”

Judge: “Good! You appear to know your history. I assume you

are also familiar with the Roman Empire which existed for over a thousand
years.”

Mr. Lee: “Thank you your honor, I do read history.”

Judge: “You are then aware Mr. Lee that at its height, the
Roman Empire included most of Europe and parts of Africa and Asia.”

Mr. Lee: “I am aware, your honor.”

Judge: “Now Mr. Lee, since the time of Alexander, the Roman
Empire and the Han Dynasty — through the course of time and historical events,
various independent countries have emerged in Europe, Africa and Asia —
which now have their own respective territories. This is a reality which
we all have to accept, wouldn’t you say?”

Mr. Lee: “We cannot deny reality, your honor.”

Judge: “Now Mr. Lee, another undeniable reality is that

Alexander’s empire, the Roman empire and the Han Dynasty kingdom are no longer
existent — am I correct in my observation?

Mr. Lee: “You are correct, your honor.”

Judge: “Now Mr.Lee, in all candor, do you seriously believe

that if the Republic of Macedonia and the Italian government were to come
before this Court and petition us to affirm that they own the territories of
these now independent countries because they were once a part of
Alexander’s empire or the Roman empire — that we would be persuaded to grant
these petitions?”

Mr. Lee: “I understand what you are getting at, Judge — but
most of what we are claiming as ours is marine area and not land.”

Judge: “The Spratlys and the Paracel islands are not land?
Anyway, isn’t it a fact that China is a signatory to the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which she ratified on July 6, 1996
thereby agreeing to be bound by its provisions — and part of which is that anything
within 200 miles from the baseline of a country belongs to that country?
Mr. Lee: “China did agree to those provisions at a time when
it was not yet aware of the far reaching consequences of UNCLOS to her national
interests.”

Judge: “I will not mince my words Mr. Lee. What you mean is
that at that time, the world, including China, was not yet aware, that vast
deposits of oil and natural gas were to be found within the territorial limits
of neighboring countries. Now

LOCKING HORNS. The Philippines and China have spent 2012 arguing over Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.
Graphic by Emil Mercado

MANILA, Philippines - Until a few months ago, few people in the Philippines, China and even the rest of the world
had heard of Scarborough Shoal.

The uninhabited rocky outcrop is located about 220 km West of Palauig, Zambales and almost 1,500 km away from
the nearest Chinese coast, but the People's Republic claims the area as part of their sovereign maritime territory in
the South China Sea.

Territorial disputes like this have been going on in the region for decades, and other claimant countries like Brunei,
Malaysia and Vietnam are involved.

But in April 2012, tensions between the Philippines and China soared over Scarborough Shoal -- Huangyan island
according to Beijing -- following a standoff between the Philippine Navy and several Chinese fishing boats that
entered the area.

The unfortunate incident brought the state of bilateral relations between the two countries to their lowest point
since they were established in 1972, and led to a mutual animosity that Manila and Beijing are still struggling to
sweep under the rug.

STALEMATE. Both sides agreed to back off but the dispute remains unsolved. Philippine sailors inspect on of the
Chinese fishing boats which ventured into Scarborough Shoal in April. Photo courtesy of DFA

Standoff at sea

On April 8, 8 Chinese fishing boats ventured into Scarborough Shoal and were spotted by a surveillance plane from
the Philippine Navy, which immediately sent the BRP Gregorio del Pilar frigate to survey the area.

Two days later, the inspection team concluded that the boats were engaged in illegal fishing activities. As the team
was about to arrest the fishermen, two Chinese surveillance ships dispatched to protect their countrymen showed
up.

The standoff continued for over a week until the BRP Gregorio del Pilar withdrew "to replenish fuel" just a a third
Chinese ship was arriving.

The Philippines accused of China of "bullying" by aggressively asserting its claim over Scarborough Shoal with the
marine surveillance ships, while Beijing claimed that it was in fact Manila that struck the first blow by dispatching the
frigate.

It wasn't only the governments that reacted to the row.

Filipino community groups in the US proposed a boycott of Chinese products, Chinese travel agencies cancelled
package tours to the Philippines and both sides engaged in mutual cyberbullying.

FRACTURES. ASEAN did not deliver the consensus on the South China Sea that the Philippines wanted. AFP
PHOTO/Tang Chhin Sothy

ASEAN fiasco
Less than 3 months after the standoff, another moment of tension occurred at the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Cambodia.

ASEAN chair Cambodia, a staunch China ally, ignored the Philippines' plea to include the territorial disputes in the
South China Sea in a joint statement and decided to not issue a joint communique at all for the first time in the
regional bloc's 45-year history.

The Philippines issued a strong protest but has so far been unsuccessful in all its attempts to obtain a common
position to deal with China from ASEAN.

Cambodia later hosted the regional bloc's summit in December, with pretty much the same outcome.

President Benigno Aquino III spoke up to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen when the latter claimed that all
member nations had agreed to take the issue off the table, and the heated discussion once again reflected the split
within ASEAN.

The 4 Southeast Asian claimant countries to the South China Sea vowed to meet separately to adopt their own
common position and discuss overlapping claims, but the meeting was postponed after typhoon Pablo devastated
Mindanao in December.

MENDING TIES. DILG Secretary Mar Roxas met with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping on September 22, 2012. Photo
courtesy of Xinhua/Xie Huanchi

China frictions

After the row at the first ASEAN meeting, China felt it had scored a victory but the battle was still being fought.

With bilateral relations were at an all-time low, the rift between Beijing and Manila was showcased when Chinese
President Hu Jintao first accepted and then refused to meet Aquino at the APEC Summit held in September in
Vladivostok, Russia.

Observers said it was possible that Hu turned down Aquino's invitation after the President ordered the official use of
the name “West Philippine Sea” to refer to maritime areas surrounding territories claimed by the Philippines, a move
resented by Beijing and defended by Manila.

The snub -- initially denied by the Palace -- had a deep impact on the administration, and the President decided to
nominate new DILG Secretary Mar Roxas to meet Chinese Vice President and leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping in China
two weeks later.

That encounter helped mend ties and both sides agreed to tone down their rhetoric, and the mood was better
during the next bilateral meeting in November.

Xi Jinping was formally picked in October as China's new leader, and now observers are speculating how this will
affect Beijing's policy toward the South China Sea.

Until now China has pushed for the issue to be discussed bilaterally and not in the media or international forums,
where the Philippines has been actively seeking US support.

Manila also wants China to agree to a binding Code of Conduct to resolve all disputes and is willing to invoke the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea to validate its claim over its 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone that
includes Scarborough Shoal.

SENATE CLASH. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen Antonio Trillanes battled it out over China. Graphic by
Emil Mercado

Trillanes and the Brady notes

Right before Roxas and Xi met in Nanning, a bombshell exploded in Manila.

Sen Antonio Trillanes confirmed that he had been acting as "backchannel negotiator" with China for months, keeping
Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario out of the loop.

His efforts, finally acknowledged by Malacañang, were exposed in full detail by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,
who was accused by Trillanes of being a stooge of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo -- seen as an ally by
Beijing -- and published notes written during the meetings by Philippine Ambassador to China Sonia Brady, then
recovering from a heart attack.

After the smoke cleared, Del Rosario emerged with a stronger position in the Cabinet and with Aquino's blessing to
handle the issue as he and his staff at the DFA saw fit.

It was the last straw though for Brady, who decided not to return to Beijing and was eventually replaced in
December by DFA Undersecretary for Policy Erlinda Basilio.

Basilio claims to have a personal stake in resolving the Scarborough Shoal dispute as her family hails from Masinloc,
Zambales, the municipality which gave name to Bajo de Masinloc, the original name of the outcrop under Spanish
colonial rule.

GOVERNMENT SEAT. Sansha City's top government office is found on a South China Sea island called Yongxing. File
photo from china.org.cn

Passport war, Sansha administration

Philippine-Chinese bilateral relations ran into yet another obstacle at the end of November, when China unveiled its
new passports including the controversial 9-Dash line rejected by other claimant countries.

The 9-Dash or U-Shaped line is used by China and Taiwan to claim a vast area of the South China Sea including the
Paracel Islands -- occupied by China but claimed by Vietnam -- and the Spratly Islands, also disputed by Brunei, the
Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam apart from Taiwan.

Manila protested the inclusion of the map in the travel document and later decided to refuse to stamp it.

Following Vietnam's lead, the government ordered the Bureau of Immigration to require Chinese travelers carrying
the new passport to get their visa stamped on a separate application document to assert that Manila does not
recognize the map.

The passport war coincided with Beijing's latest move to assert its dominance in the South China Sea by empowering
its authorities to board, check and inspect boats considered to be "intruding" in its waters.

In late June, China put all its territories in the area under the jurisdiction of Sansha, a new city belonging to Hainan
province in charge of enforcing Beijing's policy over the region.

Chinese authorities are planning to revamp development on the island, establishing a military garrison, an airport
and other infrastructure to make it clear to other countries that China is there to stay.

RICH IN RESOURCES. Scarborough Shoal sits in the middle of a region rich in minerals, oil and gas. Graphic by Emil
Mercado

Why Scarborough is important

Apart from obvious nationalistic reasons, the Philippines is fighting to assert its sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal
to defend its claim over what lies not on but beneath and around the outcrop.

The South China Sea, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, is also believed to hold vast mineral resources, as
well as oil and gas deposits.

The Philippines needs those natural resources to fuel its economy and wants to extract them either on its own or via
joint exploration projects like on the Benham Rise on the other side of Luzon.
 Businessman Manny V. Pangilinan has been discussing options with Chinese companies such as the state-owned oil
giant CNOOC to develop potentially lucrative gas fields in Recto Bank, and more gas and oil could be found someday
off Scarborough Shoal.

However, massive offshore development in the South China Sea would threaten a unique marine ecosystem already
severely damaged after decades of overfishing.

China has its priorities clear and wants to go for the oil, while the Philippines would rather resolve the territorial
dispute first and then decide what to do with the area.

Beijing has another interest in demonstrating its naval power in a region where the United States is struggling to
regain a foothold after neglecting it following the Vietnam War, when the Philippines was Washington's top ally in
Asia. - Rappler.com

Beijing says it peacefully resolved a South China Sea dispute with Vietnam
 Beijing said it will work with Hanoi to manage and control disputes in the South China Sea
 The territorial dispute has weighed on bilateral relations in recent years
Published 1:43 AM ET Fri, 3 Nov 2017 Reuters

China and Vietnam have reached an agreement on managing their dispute in the South China Sea through
friendly talks, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Friday, following an ugly spat over the summer between
the two communist neighbors.

The countries have long been at loggerheads over the strategic waterway, through which more than $3
trillion in cargo passes every year, with Vietnam having emerged as the most vocal opponent of China's
claims to the majority of the regional sea.

Reuters
An island outpost, one of several, being built by China in the South China Sea.

A scheduled meeting between their foreign ministers in August was cancelled on the sidelines of a regional
gathering in Manila amid an argument about militarization in the South China Sea and island-building.

Hanoi and Beijing, however, have sought to get relations back on track, with a top Chinese leader telling his
Vietnamese hosts in September that their two communist parties have a "shared destiny". Chinese Foreign
Minister Wang Yi met senior Vietnamese officials in Hanoi this week.

Speaking before Chinese President Xi Jinping goes to Vietnam next week for a state visit and to attend a
summit of Asia Pacific leaders, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Chen Xiaodong said national leaders of
the two countries have had many "deep, frank" discussions on maritime issues.

"They reached an important consensus," Chen told a news briefing. "Both sides will uphold the principle of
friendly consultations and dialogue to jointly manage and control maritime disputes, and protect the bigger
picture of developing Sino-Vietnam relations and stability in the South China Sea."

Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh said in a statement late on Thursday that he had
proposed in a meeting with Wang that the two countries resolve disputes based on common sense and
international law. The latter point is a contentious one in the South China Sea, where Vietnam has long said
China's extensive territorial claim has no legal basis.

South China Sea concerns flare up as Duterte considers drilling in Beijing's claims 9:32 AM ET Fri, 14
July 2017 | 00:52

China and Southeast Asian countries are willing and able to handle the South China Sea issue themselves,
Chen said, in an oblique reference to the United States, whose comments on the dispute and naval patrols in
the waterway have angered Beijing.

"We also hope countries outside the region can objectively view positive change in the South China Sea
situation, and do more for peace and stability in the region," Chen said.

China has appeared uneasy at Vietnamese efforts to rally Southeast Asian countries over the busy swathe of
sea as well as at its neighbor's growing defense ties with the United States, Japan and India.

In July, under pressure from Beijing, Vietnam suspended oil drilling in offshore waters also claimed by
China. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan also claim parts of the South China Sea, and dispute
China's contention of sovereignty over most of the waters.

China has undertaken more construction and reclamation in the South China Sea, recent satellite images
show, and is likely to more powerfully reassert its claims over the waterway soon, regional diplomats and
military officers say.

Xi is also visiting Laos during his tour, another communist-run county once firmly in Vietnam's orbit, but
which is now increasingly close to Beijing and the site of several major Chinese infrastructure projects.