Friday, May 11, 2012

Filipinos rally in France against China violation of Philippine sovereignty

Defenders of Philippine sovereignty stage rally protest in Paris in a global-wide rally over the continuing harassment and violation of Philippine territorial integrity in the Scarborough Shoals located in the West Philippine Sea.

Photo is a news footage aired on GMA news network  which is posted on the Facebook group of Doc John Ortiz Teope, Philippine broadcaster and TV talk show host:
Mga Pinoy sa Paris, nakiisa sa Global Day of Action vs umano'y paninindak ng China sa Pilipinas, ito ay pinamunuan ng mga lider ng Philippine Sabah Claim Forum, isang grupo ng mga makabayang Pilipino na ang adbokasiya ay bawiin ang Sabah sa bansang Malaysia na illegal na isinama ang Sabah sa kanilang teritoryo at pamamahala.

Para mas malaman pa ang pinaglalaban ng Philippine Sabah Claim Forum, maari po lamang na paki click ang link na ito https://www.facebook.com/groups/philippinesabahclaimforum/

Stop China Rally in Paris 11 May 2012 features Philippine Sabah Claim Forum


Philippine Sabah Claim Forum, an open group on Facebook, takes center stage in news footage in GMA network broadcast on GMA network broadcast of Filipino community rally in Paris held Friday, 11 May 2012 in Place de l'Alma, some 200 meters from the Chinese Embassy.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Rally Against China Aggression in the Philippines' Scarborough Shoal on May 11th 2012

Speech to be delivered by the organiser of the Rally Against China Aggression in the Philippines' Scarborough Shoal to be held on May 11th 2012 at Place de l'Alma, Paris, France.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the OFW Communities of France, Friends and Visitors, Members of the French Press

China has been locked in a standoff with the Republic of the Philippines right in Scarborough shoal which falls under the island territorial jurisdiction of our nation and, moreover, found right in our territorial waters or just 230kms (140 miles) from our country's main island of Luzon. China has sent 30 vessels from as far as 1,200 kilometers to the northwest with the clear intention of violating our sovereignty rights, of trampling on our territorial integrity, of poaching from our West Philippine Sea, of stealing our resources and worst of all, China has wilfull intentions of killing endangered species found in our waters for their commercial gain.

We must not forget that as recently as today, China has threatened military action against the Philippine Navy ships which have been mandated to defend our territorial integrity and to guard against any foreign invasion of the Philippines' Scarborough Shoal.

Enough is enough! We denounce the international bully that is China!

Fellow Philippine patriots, friends in France and friends from other countries in Europe, it is time to stand up to the bully that is China and to tell them that they are committing a serious crime against political decency.
 
We must show them that Filipinos are not afraid to face up to bullies and to tell them to their faces that they cannot continue to intimidate us and get away with it. It is time to say to them to that they cannot, on the pretext that the sea where the Philippine western seaboard is located is called China Sea, that they can come and violate our territorial dignity.

We call on the people of China to tell their government that China's saber rattling and threats of military confrontation against our country will lose China and the Chinese all the international goodwill that their country has tried to establish these last 30 years.
 
We ask the good people of China to tell their government that China cannot violate the territorial integrity of a neighbour with their military might and believe that the civilised world will turn a blind eye! It will be wrong to underestimate the determination of the Filipino people to defend their country in the face of overt aggression by a giant bully! Sirs, history has shown that we are a peaceful, kind, hardworking, smiling people but no matter the odds, when the sanctity of our sovereignty is threatened, we shall stand up fiercely and defend our country!

We, the members of the Overseas Filipino Workers community in France, are prepared to defend our nation's dignity in the face of any military aggression; and towards this end, we support the actions of our president, His Excellency President Benigno Aquino III in the arduous and dangerous task of dealing with pugilist China.

We must call the attention of citizens of this free world to the fact that in International Law, the acquisition of territories by violence or military actions, the hijacking of another nation's sovereignty rights, the stealing of another country's resources, the poaching and the killing of that country's endangered species -- these actions are not only regarded as illegal, they are also considered criminal in the eyes of the free world.

We therefore ask China to align with the civilised world and to do things according to International Law. We ask China, member of the powerful UN Security Council to stand by the tenet of fairness and equity.
 
We ask China to cease and desist and to leave our territorial waters immediately; to settle their issues with our country in the Court of Law. We ask China to withdraw from their ambitious plans of invading Scarborough Shoal because, Scarborough Shoal belongs to us.

We call on the Filipinos all over the world, on our friends in Europe, in the United States, in North America, in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa, in South America and everywhere else to vigorously denounce China's aggression against the Republic of the Philippines.
 
We call on the Filipinos all over the world, on our friends in France and everywhere else in Europe and around the world to tell their governments that no people, no nation, no government should allow China to brazenly defy International Law and invade, violate, intimidate us Filipinos in our own territorial waters. 
We call on the United Nations Security Council to order China to leave our territorial waters here and now and to vacate our country's Scarborough Shoal. 
We call on members of the United Nations to tell China to live by the tenet of the United Nations of upholding peace and justice in the world.

CHINA, STOP VIOLATING OUR SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS
CHINA, STOP AGGRESSING US IN OUR COUNTRY'S SCARBOROUGH SHOAL
CHINA, STOP POACHING FROM OUR TERRITORIAL WATERS
CHINA, STOP KILLING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE PHILIPPINE SCARBOROUGH SHOAL
CHINA, STOP STEALING OUR RESOURCES

CHINA, LEAVE THE PHILIPPINES' SCARBOROUGH SHOAL NOW!!!

China naval blockade of Scarborough Shoal is an act of war; Pres Aquino must protest to UN.

China naval blockade of Scarborough Shoal is an act of war; Pres Aquino must protest to UN.

Following what Philippine media claim as an accidental declaration by a Chinese anchor on a China-run television station that Philippines is an inherent part of Chinese sovereign territory, and the continuing threat by China's vice foreign Minister Fu Ying that China has "... made all preparations to respond to any escalation of the situation by the Philippine side," over the Scarborough Shoal stand-off, we have learned that several China ships have been spotted in the Scarborough waters contradicting China Embassy official statement in Manila that there were no more China military vessels in Philippine's West Philippine Sea.


Has China begun a naval blockade of the Philippines' Western seaboard? Let it be known that they are virtually doing that to Scarborough Shoal. A naval blockade of the Western seaboard of the Philippines is tantamount to partial invasion of Philippine territory and can be considered an act of war. 

The Philippine government cannot allow the situation whereby our own nationals are being harassed in our own territory by an aggressive foreign military power. The Philippines must submit a memo to the United Nations to protest the continuing violation by China of our territorial sovereignty.

The Scarborough Shoal is found 130 nautical miles from Philippine baseline which is very much within the 200 Exclusive Economic zone of the Republic of the Philippines as defined by UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China is found 1200 kms away from the Scarborough Shoal and their deployment of their ships to our territorial waters and can be considered an act of war.

It is no longer enough to have a verbal ping-pong on the ministerial level while China pursues a belligerent policy of military harassment right in our territory. It is the duty of our president, Benigno Aquino III to rouse the United Nations and call for official sanctions on China.

Scarborough Shoal: China must back-pedal on China national TV about owning the Philippines

SCARBOROUGH SHOAL: So-called gaffe by China broadcaster on China state-run TV about owning the Philippines is not a gaffe.
“We all know that the Philippines is China’s inherent territory and the Philippines belongs to Chinese sovereignty, this is an indisputable fact,” declared the anchor on China’s state-run television network.

CHINA DOES NOT MAKE THIS KIND OF GAFFE ESPECIALLY ON STATE-RUN TV. 

THE FACT THAT CHINA TV HAS REFUSED TO apologise for the "inadvertence" is evidence that the so-called gaffe was a stage-managed incident to rouse the Chinese of China to a higher pitch of nationalistic fervour. It is part of China's formidable psy-war operations in motion. 

The so-called gaffe and the non-apology must be seen as China's attempt to send a stong message that China pulitburo guards are serious about their threats to Philippine sovereignty. 

Are the Chinese intending to launch a naval blockade of the Western seaboard of the Philippines? Let it be known that they are virtuall doing that to Scarborough Shoal. A naval blockade of the Western seaboard of the Philippines is tantamount to partial invasion of Philippine territory and can be considered an act of war.

Back-pedalling on China TV is China's only way to prove that they have not meant to denigrate and vioalte Philippine sovereignty.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

CLARIFYING THE PHILIPPINES-UNITED STATES MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY

Locked in a stand-off with China over Scarborough Shoal, and following several hostile pronouncement bordering on military action intents by China against the Philippines, the Dept of Foreign Affairs issued a statement concerning the Philippines-United States Mutual Defence Treaty (document posted below the statement.)

To read about the US re-affirming its intention to honour the terms of the treaty, click on news link here

Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario:Regarding the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty

[May 9, 2012] 

In view of inaccurate information on the subject of whether or not the U.S. is prepared to respond to its commitment to the Philippines under the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), the Department of Foreign Affairs would like to establish as a matter of record that:

1. The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) on August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C.

2. As stated in the MDT’s preamble, both the Philippines and the U.S. desire to publicly declare, through the MDT, their sense of unity and common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific Area. (refer to the 3rd paragraph of the MDT’s preamble.)

3. Article IV of the MDT states: “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

4. Article V of the MDT further provides that “an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on:

  • a. the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or
  • b. on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, and
  • c. its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.”

5. On January 6, 1979, U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in his letter to Philippine Foreign Secretary Carlos P. Romulo, cited Article V of the MDT and stated that “… as provided in Article V, an attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific would not have to occur within the metropolitan territory of the Philippines or island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific in order to come within the definition of Pacific area in Article V.” (underscoring supplied).

6. On May 24, 1999, US Ambassador to the Philippines Thomas C. Hubbard wrote a letter to Foreign Secretary Domingo L. Siazon affirming that “the US Government stands by its statements in the Vance-Romulo letter of January 6, 1979.” Moreover, in the same letter, Amb. Hubbard cited Defense Secretary William Cohen’s statement that “the US considers the South China Sea to be part of the Pacific Area.” (underscoring supplied).

7. On June 23, 2011, Secretary Hillary Clinton reaffirmed to Secretary Albert F. del Rosario during their meeting in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. “will honor its treaty obligations to the Philippines.”

8. In her remarks to the media after the said meeting, Secretary Clinton declared: “The Philippines and the United States are longstanding allies, and we are committed to honoring our mutual obligation.”

9. During the question and answer session in the same media event, Secretary Clinton was asked by a correspondent from ABS-CBN this question: “What will America do if China attacks Filipino forces in the Spratly Islands? Secretary Clinton’s reply was: “Well, as to your first question, the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty and our strategic alliance with the Philippines. I’m not going to discuss hypothetical events, but I want to underscore our commitment to the defense of the Philippines.” (Source: “Remarks with Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario After Their Meeting,” Washington, D.C., June 23, 2011)

10. On November 16, 2011, Secretary Clinton and Secretary del Rosario signed the Manila Declaration which states: “The Republic of the Philippines and the United States today reaffirm our shared obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty.” (Source: “Manila Declaration on U.S.-Philippine Alliance, 16 November 2011)

11. On April 30, 2012, during the Two Plus Two meeting in Washington, D.C., Secretary Clinton reiterated that the U.S. “reaffirms our commitment and obligations under the mutual defense treaty.” (Source: “Remarks during Press Availability,” State Department, Washington, D.C. April 30, 2012)

12. As additional information, under the US Constitution, the US President as Commander-in-Chief may commit US armed forces into action overseas although the US president is obliged to notify the US Congress within 48 hours of such action, as provided for under the U.S. War Powers Resolution of 1973. The same Resolution requires that such commitment of U.S. armed forces could not go beyond 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without US congressional authorization. This means that a U.S. congressional authorization is needed only if the engagement of U.S. armed forces abroad would go beyond 60 days.  

13. It is important to note that, even in the absence of an actual armed attack against either the Philippines and the U.S., Article III of the MDT provides that the Philippines and the US, “through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific.” (underscoring supplied).

14. The recently concluded Two Plus Two meeting, at the Ministerial level, is a new mechanism for such high-level consultations.


PHILIPPINES-US MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY

MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY  
Between the THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and the THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
The Parties of this Treaty   Reaffirming their faith in the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area.  
Recalling with mutual pride the historic relationship which brought their two peoples together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side-by-side against imperialist aggression during the last war.  
Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area.  
Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area.  
Agreeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in any way or sense altering or diminishing any existing agreements or understandings between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America.  
Have agreed as follows:  
ARTICLE I. The parties undertake as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relation from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.  
ARTICLE II. In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.  
ARTICLE III. The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific.  
ARTICLE IV. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.  
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintaininternational peace and security.  
ARTICLE V. For purposes of ARTICLE IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.  
ARTICLE VI. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.  
ARTICLE VII. This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Manila.  
ARTICLE VIII. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party.In witness whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.Done in duplicate at Washington this thirtieth day of August, 1951.  
For the Republic of the Philippines: (Sgd.) CARLOS P. ROMULO (Sgd.) JOAQUIN M. ELIZALDE (Sgd.) VICENTE J. FRANCISCO (Sgd.) DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL   
For the United States of America: (Sgd.) DEAN ACHESON (Sgd.) JOHN FOSTER DULLES (Sgd.) TOM CONNALLY (Sgd.) ALEXANDER WILEY

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

MALAYSIA HAS ALSO TRIED TO LAND GRAB FROM SINGAPORE... CHECK THIS OUT

By HM Sultana Matt Salleh
For the Philippine Sabah Claim Forum
9 May 2012


NB: In line with the possible dispute with Malaysia being heard in the ICJ, it is imperative to review the application of Malaysia to the ICJ for arbitration. The following application shows clearly well that Malaysia has made it a habit of land-grabbing what territories they can; in this case, it's all about Pulau Batu Puteh (shown in map). Forewarned is forearmed.

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MALAYSIA, )
JOINT APPLICANT )
WITH )
SINGAPORE, )
JOINT APPLICANT )
MEMORIAL OF THE FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA
COMES NOW the Federation of Malaysia and for their Memorial to the Court
states the following:

STATEMENT OF LAW

1. The Johor Riau-Lingga Sultanate was founded in the 16th century. The territory of the Sultanate encompassed the island of Pulau Batu Puteh.

2. On August 2, 1824, Singapore became a British colony when Sultan Hussein, the ruler of Johor and Singapore agreed to cede the island and the ten nautical miles that surround it to the British East Indian Company "in perpetuity".

3. After the Japanese occupation from 1941-1945, the British created the Malayan Union which emerged into the Federation of Malaysia and gained independence from the British on August 31, 1957. The Federation of Malaysia consisted of Malaya, Sarawak, Sabah, and Singapore.

4. Singapore seceded from the Federation of Malaysia on August 6, 1965.

5. The International Court of Justice has stated that the administration of lighthouses and navigational aids does not necessarily exhibit State authority.

6. International Law also dictates that acts done by disputing parties that will aid their case in the International Court should not influence the final ruling. The court acted accordingly to this statue in Malaysia’s previous dispute with Indonesia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan where the court disregarded all activity on the islands after 1969when the dispute materialized.

STATEMENT OF FACT

Pualu Batu Puteh was originally a part of the Johor Sultanate. During British colonialization, Malaysia and its colonial ruler assumed sovereignty over the island. In 1824, the Sultan of Johor bestowed Singapore and the ten nautical miles that surround it to the East Indian Company; this area does not include Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, or South Ledge which lie 25 nautical miles from the coast of Singapore. In 1844, the Sultan of Johor allowed the British to construct the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the island; the sultan merely gave the British the permission to construct and administer the lighthouse. When the Singapore gained independence in 1965, they took responsibility over their navigational control duties from the British along with the duty
of up keeping the Horsburgh Lighthouse. Malaysia restated their claim to Pualu Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge through the publication of a map in 1979 which showed the islands as Malaysian. Singapore protested in 1980. Around ten years after the disagreement surfaced, Singapore built a radar facility and a helipad on Pualu Batu Puteh in 1989 and 1991 respectively.

STATEMENT OF JURISIDICION

Though both Malaysia and Singapore have not previously made declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the two nations have agreed to join in a special agreement to settle the dispute over the sovereignty of Pulau Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge. The special agreement was signed by both parties at Putrajaya on February 7, 2003. The agreement was formally ratified by both Malaysia and Singapore on May 9, 2003. In cooperation, the nations have agreed to respect decisions made by the International Court of Justice regarding territorial disputes.

ARGUMENTS

I. Malaysia’s authority to rule Pulau Balu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge.

Malaysia has controlled Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge since the 16th century with the foundation of the Johor Riau-Lingga Sultanate. The sovereignty of the Sultanate has been undisputed and even recognized by the British who later became the colonial ruler of Malaysia. During the colonial period, Malaysia and Britain ruled over the islands by making and enforcing laws as well as adjudicating disputes.

In 1844, the Sultan of Johor granted the British permission to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh to be used as an aid for the free and safe passage of merchant ships. The Sultan of Johor also allowed the British to administer the island, but all of this was granted solely by permission without turning over legal rule of the island to Britain.

II. Singapore’s claim to Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge does not have legal grounds.

Singapore was ceded to the East Indian Company in 1824. The territory gained by the company included the island and the 10 surrounding nautical miles. Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge were not included in this agreement for the small islands lie 25 nautical miles from the coast of Singapore and only 7.7 miles from Johor. The territory of which the islands in dispute lie was never under the authority of Singapore nor was this territory seceded to Singapore through any chain of title.

Additionally, after Singapore declared independence in 1965, the nation took authority over its navigational control duties as well as taking the responsibility of administering the Horsburgh Lighthouse from the British. Since the British were only granted permission to build and administer the lighthouse, Singapore has no legal authority to claim the island as its territory. To add to this, the ICJ has previously stated that mere operation of lighthouse and other navigational aids do not manifest state authority over that territory.

III. The recent construction on Pulau Batu Puteh by Singapore authorities should
not be presented as evidence on behalf of Singapore’s case.

The dispute over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge between Malaysia and Singapore commenced with the publication of a Malaysian map in 1979 labeling the islands as Malaysian territory. Singapore protested the claim in 1980. Nine years later, Singapore built a radar facility on Pulau Batu Puteh followed by the construction of a helipad in 1991. Both of these facilities were built years after the dispute over the island arose. Since international law dictated that acts done by disputing parties in order to advance their own cases shall not influence a final ruling, Singapore should not be allowed to include the construction of these two features as facts that show sovereignty over the islands in question.

SUMMARY AND PRAYER FOR RELEIF

Malaysia has held sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge for hundreds of years while Singapore has merely been allowed to administer the Horsburgh Lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh. Recent developments on Pulau Batu Puteh should not be considered by the International Court of Justice as evidence to support Singapore’s case. Until this dispute is resolved, Malaysia has agreed to avoid confrontation with Singapore on Pulau Batu Puteh. Furthermore, the Federation of Malaysia and Singapore have both agreed to adhere to the court’s judgment in this matter.


http://www.amun.org/final/05/ICJ_Malaysia.pdf
www.amun.org


TO VIEW THE SCHOLARLY STUDY MADE IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION BY THE ICJ ON THE PULAUH BATU PUTEH SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE (SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE), CHECK THE DOCUMENTS BY CLICKING ON THE FOLLOWING LINK here