China's creeping invasion of Philippine EEZ: Mischief Reef, Sabina Shoal, Scarborough Shoal, what next?

GOOGLED IMAGE OF 'STOLEN' MISCHIEF REEF AND SABINA SHOAL both well within the 200-nautical mile Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and located exactly 130 miles (209 km) and 70 miles (113 km) away from Palawan respectively. In 1994, when the Philippine Navy was not looking, China invaded Mischief Reef and planted structures. The Philippines decided not to press for its recovery. China then took control of Sabina Shoal which was even nearer Palawan.

In 2012, China repeated their illegal exploits in Philippine EEZ by encircling Scarborough Shoal and declaring all of South China Sea (which overlaps our own West Philippine Sea) as theirs. What will be their "Sabina Shoal" this time? Will it be the Hermana Mayor island or the Hermana Menor Island which are found northwest off the coast of Zambales?

TIME ASIA REPORT ON CHINA'S ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF MISCHIEF REEF AND SABINA SHOAL:

TIME Asia 030899
MISCHIEF REEF

September 14, 1999

After several passes the pilots turned back toward Palawan, but on the way they descended to check out another reef, the Sabina Shoal, which is even closer to the Philippines and on which Chinese marker buoys have been foundand blown upby the navy before. The Chinese have a wellrehearsed routine when laying claim to a new reef first they put down buoys, then they build concrete markers. Temporary wooden or bamboo shelters follow, and if they are still not challenged, the permanent military forts go up. The Philippines tries to blow up the buoys or the markers before China has time to build and occupy larger structures. We cant demolish the inhabited structures because we dont want war in the Spratlys, says presidential spokesman Jerry Barrican.

We must NOT ALLOW what happened to Mischief Reef and the succeeding occupation of Sabina Shoal (because we did not react with determination) to happen again. We must guard our other islands in the Spratlys, patrol West Philippine Sea relentlessly to show bit of presence. Navy and Coast Guard do not need to patrol with guns blazing. All they need IS TO PERFORM THEIR JOB.

By not allowing our Coast Guard to patrol our territorial waters, i.e., Scarborough, Malacanang is sending a very bad signal to China, which will inevitably reflect very poorly on ALL, and we mean, ALL Pinoy citizens.

There is nothing to fear. PCG or PN patrolling our coast WILL NOT lead to war with China. In the first place, Pinas has no capability to enter into a war with China so there will be no war. If China becomes militarily violent against Pinas, they will be facing world condemnation.

Our vessels, however, do run the risk of being rammed, and worse, one of them sunk by China vessels. Should the President take risk of possibly (just possibly) sacrificing a govt ship with, perhaps, loss of lives? The answer is yes. If President Aquino is not prepared to do it, then he must formally abandon our claim and move on as in put the entire China stealing episode behind us.

By Anne de Bretagne

For the Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims

16 December 2012 

Potential Panetta replacement puts Philippines in its place; Philippine strategic blunder over Scarborough invites snide remarks from China

IS AMERICA FEEDING THE EGO OF CHINA? COULD THE DECLARATION OF POSSIBLE SUCCESSOR (picture shown) TO U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA have triggered Beijing's snide remark that the Philippines is being a "troublemaker" because we are pressing our claim to Scarborough Shoal? 

QUESTION: Why does this potential successor to Panetta have to open her big mouth? ANSWER: Because our government officials have committed a monumental blunder, in fact, a strategical blunder of untold proportions; and having done that, these same officials continue to hang to the belief that America will be our saviour! Grow up PH Govt officials and leaders!

LAST 29th November, the possible successor to US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said there was a risk of Manila “mistaking U.S. support for an opportunity to be much more assertive in staking their claims. I think we have to be careful that we don’t feed that dynamic.”

Ms Michele Flournoy, former US undersecretary of defence for US policy, also said, “I do think there is a danger of some of our friends occasionally misreading, or miscalculating, in terms of the support that they have from the United States.” 

Sanamagan! Although we must say that she is right to be straightforward (at least we know where Pinas stands!!!) The Philippines should NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED to withdraw our ships even under US pressure. NEVER!!!!! If it is truethat PH was indeed under pressure from the United States back in mid-2012 to agree with China for the withdrawal of ships, the Philippines should have asked for a quid pro quo, i.e., for an official American commitment that the US would help Pinas to eject the intruders should the agreement not work. Otherwise, should have been no go!

HERE'S THE REPORT: 

Former U.S. Official: Don’t Mistake Support on South China Sea
December 14, 2012, 6:41 PM
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images 

A former senior U.S. defense official viewed as a possible successor to Leon Panetta as defense secretary said the Philippines has recently mistaken U.S. renewed engagement in the region as an opportunity to more assertively pursue territorial claims against China. 

Michele Flournoy, who served as undersecretary for defense policy until February 2012, said last month while the U.S. needed to send clear signals of support for its allies in the region, it also needed to ensure that support didn’t lead allies to act provocatively. 

Naming the Philippines specifically, she said there was a risk of Manila “mistaking U.S. support for an opportunity to be much more assertive in staking their claims. I think we have to be careful that we don’t feed that dynamic.” 

The comments by Ms. Flournoy came during a question-and-answer session at Australian National University on Nov. 29. Video of the remarks was posted on YouTube this week. 

“I do think there is a danger of some of our friends occasionally misreading, or miscalculating, in terms of the support that they have from the United States,” Ms. Flournoy added.

Let's get things right. The United States will always have its interest in mind first and foremost. Miss Fournoy is right to be straightforward. We cannot blame the United States for not siding with us because at the end of the day, it was the Philippines that committed the blunder and stuck to the belief that the US would come to Philippine aid. So sorry Messieurs Philippine officials! The Spratlys and Scarborough are NOT PART OF THE US-PH Mutual Defence Treaty. Philippine officials must have known that. They have been completely do-lally!

Today, we must face the fact that China now has de facto control (and sovereignty) of Scarborough. They can declare that Scarborough is land mass which, if they do, can change the EEZ dynamics. 

AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS OR POTENTIAL ENORMOUS PROBLEM WILL BE? If they do that, they will be able to declare that waters from Scarborough land mass stretching 200nautical miles from Scarborough Shoal (from Panatag itself + 12 nautical miles from the shoal itself) belong to them which will ultimately deprive the Philippines of everything down to the Philippines own 12 nautical mile territorial waters (from our baseline). In other words, if China declares that the 200 nautical miles of waters from Scarborough-Panatag Shoal itself are part of China Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the act could effectively rope Zambales and all the islands inward, i.e., inside Luzon itself, as in navally blockaded by China. Our officials or leaders who AGREED TO order the withdrawal of our ships back in July did not think of potential consequences. Complete dumbos!

The Philippines should NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED to withdraw our ships even under US pressure. NEVER. If it is true that PH was indeed under pressure from the United States back in mid-2012 to agree with China for the withdrawal of ships, the Philippines should have asked for a quid pro quo, i.e., for the US commitment that the US would help Pinas to eject the intruders should the agreement not work.

To accept to withdraw our ships -- whatever the pressure, was a tactical, nay, a strategic blunder of untold proportions.

President Aquino is responsible for this fiasco. At the end of the day, he has the ultimate command responsibility. President Aquino is lucky that Philippine media is do-lally and that Pinoys have not fully absorved the enormity of the atrocious tactical blunder committed by his government.

By Anne de Bretagne
Defenders of the Philippine Sabah and Spratly Claims
15 December 2012