Philippines v. China: Q. and A. on South China Sea Court Case

The Chinese Coast Guard confronted Filipino fishermen near Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea last year. Credit Renato Etac/Associated Press

An international court in The Hague is scheduled to release a landmark ruling on Tuesday in a dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea. Here are answers to six questions about the case.

What is this case about?

The Philippines filed a complaint in 2013 after China took control of a reef about 140 miles from the Philippine coast. It accused China of violating international law by interfering with fishing, endangering ships and failing to protect the marine environment at the reef, known as Scarborough Shoal.

But the Philippines also went further, asking an international tribunal to reject China’s claim to sovereignty over waters within a “nine-dash line” that appears on official Chinese maps. The dashes encircle as much as 90 percent of the South China Sea, an area the size of Mexico that is vital to global trade and rich in natural resources, including potential oil deposits.

The Philippines also accused China of violating international law by dredging sand to build artificial islands out of several reefs in the South China Sea, including one it says is in its waters.

What does international law say?

The Philippines filed its complaint under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which lays out rules for the use of the world’s oceans. The treaty came into force in 1994 and has been ratified by both China and the Philippines, as well as 165 other states and the European Union.

Islands are colored by occupying country: China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam or Taiwan. Lines in the same colors show the extent of territorial claims. Photo: New York times

The treaty says a country has sovereignty over waters extending 12 nautical miles from its coast, and control over economic activities in waters on its continental shelf and up to 200 nautical miles from its coast, including fishing, mining, oil exploration and the construction of artificial islands.

The treaty sets out detailed rules for defining these zones, what to do when two nations’ zones overlap and how to resolve disputes.

China’s nine-dash line includes waters beyond these zones, and Beijing has cited what it calls historical evidence to support it.

The treaty does include exceptions for historic rights, but the Philippines says China’s claims in the South China Sea do not qualify.

The Obama administration has backed the Philippines on this question, saying historic rights can apply only to bays or other coastal waters, not the high seas. But the United States has not ratified the treaty.

China’s reclamation of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea. China has conducted enormous dredging operations to transform reefs into artificial islands with military runways. Credit Pool photo by Ritchie B. Tongo

What does China say?

China has boycotted the international tribunal that was set up to hear the case.

It says the panel of five judges and legal experts has no jurisdiction because the sovereignty of reefs, rocks and islands in the South China Sea is disputed.

The argument goes like this: If you don’t know what countries these specks of land belong to, you can’t use the treaty to draw territorial and economic zones in the waters around them. And the judges can’t decide whom the specks of land belong to because the Law of the Sea deals only with maritime disputes, not land disputes.

China also says it reached a deal with the Philippines years ago to settle disputes in the South China Sea through negotiations. That agreement, it says, prohibited the Philippines from taking the case to the tribunal.

Why is this case important?

In addition to China and the Philippines, five states — Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam — claim parts of the South China Sea. Their differences sometimes escalate into skirmishes, and people are worried that an incident could erupt into a broader conflict.

United States Navy sailors monitoring radar and other instruments aboard the guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville in the South China Sea. Credit Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Tuesday’s ruling will be the first time an international tribunal has ruled on any of these disputes. It could set a precedent or establish principles for easing tensions. It could also alter the political dynamic in the region, restraining some countries while emboldening others.

China probably has the most at stake. Since the case was filed, it has conducted enormous dredging operations to transform reefs into artificial islands with military runways and naval harbors, over the objections of countries with competing claims as well as those of the United States. The tribunal could declare some of this construction illegal, or it could leave the question unresolved.

Either way, China’s response to the ruling will be seen as a test of what kind of country it is becoming — a global leader committed to international law and institutions, or a superpower willing to take unilateral action against its neighbors.

Why does the Chinese government care so much about the South China Sea?

Chinese military strategists say China needs to control the sea to defend itself, to push the United States out of the Western Pacific and to become a naval power.

China also depends on the shipping routes that go through the sea, and is eager to lay claim to oil and other resources to fuel its voracious economy.

There are domestic political factors, too. Chinese schoolchildren are taught that the sea has belonged to China since ancient times, and President Xi Jinping has used the construction of artificial islands in the sea to fan nationalist sentiment and strengthen his authority over the Chinese military.

What happens if the tribunal rules against China?

The Chinese government has said it will not “accept, recognize or execute” the decision.

While the ruling will be binding, the tribunal has no power to enforce it, and no one expects that China will volunteer to dismantle its artificial islands and return the sand to the ocean floor.

But the United States, the region’s dominant military power, could use the decision to justify more naval patrols in the area, to recruit new allies and give more support to old ones, and to rally world opinion against Beijing’s behavior.

While it will denounce the ruling in public, the Chinese leadership may decide to back off and begin easing tensions with neighboring countries. It could start with the new Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, who says he wants to improve relations with China and has proposed talks on maritime cooperation.

But some analysts are worried that President Xi will respond instead with defiance.

Chinese diplomats have already suggested China might withdraw from the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It could also begin transforming the reef at the center of the dispute, Scarborough Shoal, into a military outpost, risking a clash with the Philippines, an American ally.

And it might try to impose a new “air defense identification zone” over part of the South China Sea, asserting the right to identify, monitor and take military action against planes in the area.

Bryant Rousseau contributed research. A version of this article appears in print on July 11, 2016, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Philippines v. China: Ruling Will Be a First on South China Sea.

The New York Times

Continue reading

SolGen Calida to PNP: I will defend police in war on drugs

Solicitor General Jose Calida slammed Senator and former Justice Secretary Leila De Lima for allegedly planning to launch an “investigation in aid of media mileage” and not “in aid of legislation.” Jose Calida, Facebook; Philstar.com

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) – Solicitor General Jose Calida said Monday police officers facing harassment cases in connection with the administration’s war on drugs can expect legal support from his office.

Calida made the statement after meeting Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Ronald Dela Rosa at Camp Crame. He said he will not allow anyone to obstruct the government's efforts to stop the drug menace in the country.

"I am here to encourage the PNP not to be afraid of any Congressional or Senate investigations,” Calida said. “We will defend them. If there is a fiscalizer, I am the neutralizer and the defender of the PNP.”

Calida was responding to a call by Sen. Leila De Lima, a former Justice Secretary, for a probe on the series of drug-related killings by the police.

De Lima has expressed alarm over daily reports of suspected drug dealers and even users killed in police operations. According to PNP, there were 103 suspects killed and 5,845 arrested from May 10 to July 3 in anti-illegal drugs operations.

< video >

"What happened during her tenure?” Calida said. Answering his own question, he said, “Lalong lumakas ang proliferation of drugs even in her own turf."

[Translation: The proliferation of drugs worsened even in her own turf.]

He said De Lima apparently has not done enough to stop the drug menace as Justice Secretary in charge of the National Bureau of Investigation, the prosecution service and the correctional institutions. He said that the Senate probe on the killings is not principally intended to help stop drug trafficking.

“Hindi po ito (This is not an) investigation in aid of legislation. To me, I think, it is investigation in aid of media mileage,” he said.

“This is a serious situation now, hindi papogihan sa (it’s not to look good in the) media,” he said. “The police are risking their lives. It is the height of naiveté for Secretary De Lima, who apparently does not know the mind of a crazed drug addict."

He said there is always a “presumption of regularity” in all police operations, that's why De Lima's call for a hearing is based purely on hearsay. Presumption of regularity implies authorities follow the law, including police rules of engagement by shooting suspects only in self-defense.

Calida said during De Lima’s term as Justice Secretary, illegal drugs proliferated especially in the New Bilibid Prison. He said his office is considering filing charges against De Lima in connection with that. – CNN Philippines

Continue reading

Mysterious Blast in Philippines Fuels Rodrigo Duterte's 'Hatred' of U.S.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s “hatred” for the U.S. is linked to a blast incident in a Davao City hotel room in 2002 involving a criminal suspect whom the American agents spirited away to Manila and then to the U.S. without the permission of the local government – Photo: AsiaTimes

MANILA — For more than a decade, a mysterious explosion at the Evergreen Hotel in Davao City has been a footnote in the long, checkered history between the Philippines and its former colonial master, the United States. But among those who never let it go was the city’s mayor, Rodrigo Duterte — who is now poised to become the Philippines’ new president.

In an interview last year before he announced his candidacy, Mr. Duterte went so far as to acknowledge “hatred” for the United States stemming from the obscure episode, when an American named Michael Terrence Meiring was charged with possession of explosives but managed to flee the Philippines.

Mr. Meiring called himself a treasure hunter and joked about being with the C.I.A., meaning “Christ in Action.” He told the hotel staff not to touch a metal box in his room, apparently with good reason. On May 16, 2002, the box exploded, mangling his legs and damaging the hotel.

But three days later, despite severe injuries and the charges against him, Mr. Meiring vanished from his hospital room. Philippine officials later said that men waving F.B.I. badges had taken him in the dark of night and flown him out of the country without their permission.

Mr. Duterte expressed outrage that the United States would help a criminal suspect leave the country without regard to Philippine law. He also fanned speculation that Mr. Meiring was involved in covert operations conducted by the United States in the Philippines.

Fourteen years later and scheduled to be sworn in as president on June 30, Mr. Duterte is still angry.

Last month, he threatened to cut ties with Washington in response to critical comments from the United States ambassador to the Philippines, Philip S. Goldberg. “Go ahead and sever it,” Mr. Duterte snapped, referring to diplomatic relations. His spokesman, Peter Laviña, explained that Mr. Duterte’s hostility originated with the Meiring case.

“Mayor Duterte has his own personal experience in Davao,” Mr. Laviña said in a television interview. “We were able to capture a bomber, a suspect in the bombing in Davao. He was an American. He was spirited away by the U.S. Embassy. I think that’s when the bad relations started.”

The Philippines has long been the United States’ closest ally in Southeast Asia. The two nations have a mutual defense pact, and the Philippines recently agreed to allow the Pentagon to station troops and weapons at bases in the country. For more than a decade, American forces have also trained and advised Philippine soldiers hunting the Abu Sayyaf, a gang of rebel kidnappers operating in the southern islands that recently swore allegiance to the Islamic State.

Davao City is the most populous city in the south, and a pair of bombings there killed 38 people in 2003. But Mr. Duterte, its mayor for the past 20 years, has long expressed skepticism about the American military presence. In 2013, he said he had blocked an American proposal to base drones at Davao City’s old airport, citing his concerns about the Meiring case.

“I do not want it,” he was quoted saying in local news media. “I do not want trouble and killings. They will only add to the problem.”

Aides to Mr. Duterte did not respond to requests for comment. But in the interview in which he discussed the case last year, Mr. Duterte said that his “hatred” for the United States was a “personal” sentiment that he could set aside in the national interest. He also said, though, that his anger over the Meiring case had not diminished.

A spokesman for the United States Embassy, Kurt Hoyer, said it would have no comment on the drone proposal, the Meiring affair, or how the episode might affect relations with the incoming president. He said an embassy press statement in 2002 was the final word on the case, but was unable to provide it.

In the statement, according to published reports, the embassy acknowledged that F.B.I. agents went to the Evergreen Hotel to investigate the explosion but “categorically” denied that the agency “had any role in Mr. Meiring’s departure.”

The Meiring affair has long been the subject of conspiracy theories in the Philippines. Much remains unexplained, including why there were explosives in Mr. Meiring’s room and who mounted the operation that helped him escape.

“Why should the U.S. take him out of the country? That’s the puzzle,” said a former high-ranking Philippine intelligence official who declined to be identified because he was not directly involved in the case.

According to news reports, Mr. Meiring had been going to Davao City on the island of Mindanao for many years, usually staying in the same suite at the Evergreen. He had documents allowing him to hunt for treasure — which was believed to have been left by occupying Japanese forces during World War II — and an identity card allowing him to travel in territory held by separatist Islamic rebels.

At the time, the southern Philippines was plagued by armed conflict with the rebels and occasional bombings, including a blast a month earlier that killed 15 people in the city of General Santos, about 90 miles south of Davao City.

When the police first questioned Mr. Meiring about the explosion at the Evergreen, he said someone had thrown a grenade into his room. But investigators quickly found conclusive evidence that the blast was caused by explosives in his room, according to the police file, including the remains of two 6-volt batteries, an electric blasting cap and a circuit board.

Doctors amputated one of Mr. Meiring’s legs, but he was taken from the hospital and flown from Davao by charter plane, the police said at the time. He received medical treatment in Manila and left the country soon after.

Witnesses said that the men who took him from the hospital displayed F.B.I. badges. The hospital’s owner told reporters that he agreed to release Mr. Meiring despite his injuries after American officials promised to issue a work visa for his daughter, a nurse.

Mr. Meiring returned to the United States, where he also went by the family name Vande-Meer. He died in 2012 at 76, public records show, without ever telling his story publicly. His former wife, Angela, contacted by phone, declined to discuss his time in the Philippines.

A Davao City court official, who had not been informed of Mr. Meiring’s death, said there was still an outstanding warrant for his arrest on charges of illegal possession of explosives and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.

There has long been unsubstantiated speculation in the Philippines that Mr. Meiring was responsible for bombings in the turbulent region as part of a covert American operation aimed at gathering intelligence on the rebels or prompting the Philippine government to approve greater United States military assistance.

But a former C.I.A. official who served in the Philippines discounted the possibility that Mr. Meiring was a C.I.A. operative. While the former official was not familiar with details of the Meiring case, he said keeping explosives in his hotel room and joking about “Christ in Action” would be obvious violations of agency protocol.

Ramon Casiple, the executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, a nonprofit organization promoting democracy in the Philippines, said the burden would be on Washington to win Mr. Duterte’s trust, perhaps starting with an explanation of what happened at the Evergreen Hotel.

“He will try to improve relations with the U.S. but it is really more of the U.S. building relations with him,” Mr. Casiple said. “As far as he is concerned, the U.S. record in Mindanao is not that good.”

A version of this article appears in print on May 14, 2016, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Mysterious Blast in Philippines Shaped Presumptive Leader’s View of U.S.

-       The New York Times

 

Continue reading