Why China is a Real Threat

Chinese mob attacks Japanese car

At the end of 2012, JoeAm identified four institutions that are interested in undermining the development of a modern Philippines. Here is a status report:

• The Anti Blog Sites are best ignored as they dissolve in the acids of their bitter view of the Philippines and Filipinos. The positive developments in the Philippines are real. The Antis have been wrong for three years and still can't summon up the candor to acknowledge that fact. That, my friends, is called denial.

• China is pursuing its belligerant approach to other nations in Asia. Today's article addresses this.

• The Catholic Church is rather like the Republic Party in the US, just off a bitter political loss and trying to reconcile the defeat with their belief that they are the Lords of All Wisdom. JoeAm has written several articles on this topic and is prepared to resume doing his attack writings if the Church again raises its political head to try to drag the Philippine back into the dark ages. For now, he will let the Church partake of introspection in hopes that the CBCP leaders will see that their political engagements are as beneficial as flagellation. 

• The Chronically Corrupt are on the run thanks to the Aquino Administration's attack dogs, the Ombudsman and Justice. JoeAm will comment from time to time.

Today's subject: China.

China is run by committee and, like any large state, has many challenges and internal disagreements on how to move forward. Very clearly, China wants to grow wealthier and provide for her citizens. This makes her a  rising gorilla of consumption and she is feeding her beast lavishly. Acquiring patented secrets through theft, gaining control of most of the earth's rare-earth metals (essential for electronics), expanding her reach in Latin America and Australia and anywhere she can gain entry.  Scraping rocks from the Philippine mountains for a cheap 2% excise payment.

Chinese rally in protest of Japan's claim to "Chinese" islands

From the Chinese point of view, this is good progress. Theft of secrets can be rationalized as essential to make up for historical discrimination and punishments. Capturing the market on rare earth metals is good competitive execution. Going after oil and minerals around the globe is essential to feed and raise the living standards of the millions of Chinese moving from poverty to middle class.

Americans or Europeans might not like this rising giant taking over all the choice markets, but they've each had their turn in the sunshine. It's a free world, after all.

The essential question is, does China have the depth and breath of tolerance and respect for others to pursue her aims in a way that avoids violent confrontation?

The two photographs above illustrate the depth of hostility that China is able to work up through State controlled media. China is an emotional nation, as Japan was an emotional nation leading up to World War II. Japan has been punished economically by China this past year for waging dispute over islands. Many Japanese businesses withdrew from Japan, others suffered material damages, physical or financial though boycotts.

The Philippine engagement is mild by comparison, but that does not mean it will stay that way.

This is a bit of a dance, but it is transpiring on the edge of a cliff. One best move carefully.

The great mystery for outsiders is understanding what the REAL policy of China is. When a military officer of substantial rank cites an opinion, is he speaking for the State of China?

When American military officers speak publicly, they are representing the United States, officially. So they speak with care, or not at all.

So what do we hear if we listen to Chinese military men? Here is an excerpt from a fascinating Reuters article, just published, called "Special Report: China's military hawks take the offensive".

The Air Force Colonel, Dai Xu, is renowned for his regular calls to arms. With China in dispute for much of last year with Japan in the East China Sea and Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea, Dai argued a short, decisive war, like China's 1962 border clash with India, would deliver long-term peace. He also said Washington would not risk war with China over these territorial spats. "Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real," he wrote in an August 28 commentary published in the Chinese-language edition of the Global Times, a nationalistic tabloid published by the Communist Party organ, the People's Daily. "This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia," added Dai, a researcher at Beijing University's China Centre for Strategic Studies. "We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel."

Source: Reuters

And what do we THINK when we hear these statements.

"Running dogs?"

It's physical. Japanese Coast Guard corrals protesters.

"We only need to kill one?"

There is an arrogance, emotionalism and Chinese centrism to these statements that is frightening. One would be remiss to believe this is NOT the official attitude of the Chinese central committee.

One might conceivably argue that this man is just a colonel and does not speak for the State. He speaks for himself. Then one would have to conclude that the Chinese military has poor discipline, and there is nothing to prevent a hothead anywhere from pulling a trigger or pushing a button.

"Oh, it is just bluster. The Chinese are good at the subtleties of international gamesmanship."

So then we can't trust China at all, eh?

The most prudent course is to expect that China WILL use military force to take command of islands within Philippine territorial waters. Just as her Navy now resides on Scarborough Shoals with no intention of leaving. That's 124 nautical miles from Luzon. Pag-asa Island in the middle of the Spratleys, with a vibrant Filipino community, well outside the 200 nautical mile economic zone from Palawan, is perhaps the most dangerous place of contention. It is not like the bare rock at Scarborough.

It would be prudent to draw up alternative ways of reacting to further Chinese aggression.

Sooner rather than later.

When the day arises that China asserts claim, militarily, to occupied Philippine islands, Mr. Aquino must select the best alternative.

It should be well thought out ahead of time. That is my main point here.

You will notice that I did not say "if" the day arises.

Public statements following any incident should be quick. Clear. Firm. Confident. They should not be doubtful or timid or reflective of surprise.

The Philippines would be negligent if it were surprised by any step China might take.

Is China Stupid? Subtitled "America, the Spinach"

Okay, just off of my latest Ken Follett novel, "Code to Zero", I'm in the mood for a little international skullduggery, spies and intrigue. Those big games of "Who Do You Trust?".

China is a masterwork of controlled public reactions. Homebound Chinese seem to be emotional people, the Italians of Asia, I guess, easily stoked into indignant, patriotic angers by captive media that tout the government's line.

We certainly know that the Philippines is painted by China as a very bad nation when conflict with China occurs over islands.  Newspapers condemn evil Filipinos and Chinese stomp about in indignant anger.

Of course, it would appear that Japan is also a very bad nation, given that Japanese activists have landed on contested islands, really irritating the Chinese. Causing them to condemn the evil Japanese and stomp . . .

And Taiwan is a bad nation when it occupies contested islands.

And South Korea . . .

And Viet Nam . . .

When will China wake up to the fact that it's divide and conquer strategy on the territorial conflicts in the West Philippine Sea is producing a hornet's nest of enemies?

And in the background stands the biggest hornet of them all, with treaties in place to defend the Philippines and South Korea and Japan if they are attacked by China.

• At what point will the people of China, the broad masses, ask, "why do all these other countries hate China so?"

• And the follow-up question. "Could it be something that we, China, is doing?"

Well, hallelujah, yes indeedy. It's called being an obnoxious bully and presuming that being big gives you the right to stomp around and tell everyone else what the law is without regard for their history or self-interest.

The historical document they use to claim the seas is a slap-dash nine-line drawing that was prepared by an enemy of the Chinese communist state, Chiang Kai-shek. But it is useful, so what the hey . . .

The people with insight say China is acting tough now because it is going through a transition in leadership, and leaders who aspire to remain on the job or get promoted can't appear weak. So they posture as tough. Smart politics maybe, but dumb diplomacy.

Whatever the reason, China is acting like Bluto, the big dumb lummox who was always trying to steal Popeye's goil Olive Oyl.

Well, in this modern tale, Oyl is oil and Popeye is the Philippines and America is the spinach that gives the Philippines the muscle to do what is necessary.

Like occupy its own islands and repel that lummox Bluto.

Occupy and defend.

Ken Follett might come up with something different, but that would be my strategy, acted out in concert with similar moves by Japan, and Taiwan, and South Korea, and Viet Nam and any other nation tired of being muscled around by Bluto.

The strategy would be labeled "The Year of the Hornet" and every habitable island within 200 nautical miles of Philippine shores would be occupied within one year, starting in November, right after the U.S. presidential election.

The US of A

The U.S. is on the minds of many Filipinos these days. Not like in the hostile days of Nicole when it was figured that all Americans are sex mad rapists. Not like when the American military unnecessarily blasted Manila to rubble in WW II to drive out the rats and Japanese, at significant loss of Filipinos life. That was the MacArthur ego-fiesta, what a jerk. Not like in the Philippine American War when racist white Americans pulled every murderous dirty trick in the book to win the hearts and minds of Filipinos, by force. Not like in Mindanao where guessing is rampant about what Americans are REALLY doing there. Like maybe running drones and playing dirty in violation of the Constitution, seeking to annihilate those fine Filipinos who believe beheading of innocents is a proper way to impose a religious ideology.

No, the question is, will the U.S. be there for the Philippines?

I read a comment the other day that probably echoes the sentiment of many Filipinos. The writer said: "The U.S. is only out for its own interest". The point was that Filipinos can't depend on the U.S.

Excuse me, but that is about the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard.

Whose interest, exactly, should the U.S. put ahead of its own?

• Philippine interests?

• Russian interests?

• Chinese interests?

That's the purpose of a nation. To put its own interests, and the interests of its citizens, first. To expect the U.S. to take care of the Philippines is that beggar mentality I was referring to the other day. Out of the graciousness of their hearts, Americans are supposed to pony up dollars and blood for their happy-go-lucky Filipino compadres? Why? Because of guilt that America was racist in 1898 and needs to do a make-good? Because the poor woeful Philippines needs it? Word association linkages: needs, needy, whiney, beggar, turnoff.

 

I will not bother to itemize ways the Philippines has not acted in U.S. interests. You know them. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Philippines is entitled to sail its own ship.

But I rather think that now is a good time to step up, toss off the cloak of neediness in favor of a cloak of confidence, and recognize the U.S. is entitled to have interests of its own that may differ from Philippine interests and not blame Americans for every little pimple that appears on the Filipino national nose.

 "Okay, okay, Joe. Calm down, man. Put your patriotic passion back in its backpack and reason with us."

Yeah, yeah, okay.

U.S. Interests

If we use "U.S. national interest" as the fundamental guiding principle here, maybe we can figure out if the U.S. would back the Philippines. Let's do a quick scan of what we see:

• China is aggressively seeking to acquire minerals around the world to support its massive manufacturing and wealth-building machine. It is doing this legally and forcefully, forcefully because China can act as a nation rather than a collection of corporate entities, like the U.S. China can subsidize and undercut any bidding from competitors.

• The Spratleys and Scarborough Shoal are of high interest to China. They are "free" for the taking.

• The trillions of dollars of "investments" China has made in the U.S. by buying U.S. debt is a two-edged sword. China can "play" the U.S. financial markets, and wreak havoc, but, at the end of the day, the value of its investment is only as good as U.S. financial strength. So China wants U.S. economic stability, because it supports Chinese stability. This is a starkly clear statement that China favors stability over disruption. Shooting at one another is extreme disruption.

• Is China right now strong enough to force military confrontation with the U.S.? No. Not yet. China loses more than it gains in military confrontation with the U.S.  China loses the platform supporting its own wealth-building and strength-building.

• Here's another signal. A disturbing one. China's drive to get to outer space has a strong military drive behind it. This is a nation that has not progressed to believe that China is better off in a cooperative global community. China has one foot in Maoist military arrogance and one foot in progressive capitalist ideas.

• China's leadership is not unified. There are progressives and there are tyrants. China is pushing the edges right now because the current leadership is aggressive. But it is difficult to see how China would gain from a shooting conflict .

• Chinese leaders are talented at leveraging ethnic Chinese pride and nationalism into a love/hate frenzy. It can spin to anger quickly and even reset what leaders do. There is a cultural emotionalism to China that makes a wrong play dangerous.

• Perhaps China is pushing hard to claim the seas to establish a negotiating position against the U.S. It will give up the Spratleys and Scarborough for . . . what? U.S. pullback from Asia? Backing off from criticizing China's monetary policy? Something else significant?

The Number One U.S. interest is to encourage China to develop respect for other nations and  to become a cooperative and peaceful partner, even a leader, in the world community. But China is like an unruly pupil, a bully, wanting to dominate other nations. The military expansion being undertaken by China is almost warlike, never mind the rationalizations that China throws out. It is intense.

Furthermore, not only is China pushing into Asia, but China is also pushing into South America. The U.S. shudders to imagine a South America that is under China's influence as much as Asia is under U.S. influence. Consider strong U.S. commerce and/or military ties and influences in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. The U.S. can imagine a Chinese naval base in Venezuela, an Army base in Argentina.

How and where can China learn respect for other nations? Where is there a good place to put a halt to Chinese unilateral expansionism? To draw some lines, to put some limits on the bully? To work on diplomacy before the shooting, and not after. To continue to encourage China to join the global community of nations rather than stand apart.

Right here, right now, off the shores of the Philippines. And Viet Nam. And Taiwan. And Japan.

The Number Two U.S. Interest is to honor its contract to defend the Philippines. This does NOT mean the U.S. will act as the Philippine military proxy and put its warships into the Spratleys to chase out Chinese intruders. But it means the U.S. will talk the Philippines up as a nation warranting China's respect. And the U.S. will apply diplomatic pressure to keep China from being rash. And, should shooting start at China's initiative, the U.S. will shoot back.

A person can go nuts trying to draw alternative scenarios as to what can happen.

• If the Philippines forces a military confrontation, say by trying to stop the Chinese coral raids going on now off Palawan, there will be a military face off. The U.S. will likely play it soft, diplomatically,  to get both contestants back into their respective corners. Chinese expansion will stop. That's good for the U.S. and Philippines.

• If China shoots at Philippine boats, military or civilian, the U.S. is likely to move its own ships behind Philippine ships. China will stand down. That's good for the U.S. and Philippines.

• If the Philippines starts drilling on islands or in areas China claims, China will forcefully put a stop to it. The U.S. will enter the fray (diplomatically) to calm both sides. The drilling will stop. Chinese expansion will stop. It's a good result for the U.S. but not the Philippines.

• If China starts drilling on islands or in areas the Philippines claims and the Philippines takes action to stop it, the U.S. will add its voice to get the drilling stopped and the parties separated. The result is of  benefit to the U.S. and the Philippines.

• If the Philippines does nothing, it will lose its rightful territory and resources because the U.S. has no cause to act. Chinese expansion will continue. It's bad plan for the Philippines. I would think even the U.S. would not like that plan.

Wrap-Up

It is hard to see how the Philippines can gain much because in the stopping of China (the primary U.S. interest), Philippine oil drilling also stops, at least for a time. However, the Philippines clearly LOSES if it does nothing and allows China to push out. And so does the U.S.

The U.S. will urge Asean to push forward on a code of conduct to allow open seas, ensure demilitarization of disputed zones, and promote negotiated settlements on commercial development. 

China will not accept the U.N. maritime rules put forward by the Philippines. The Philippines can try to secure U.N. endorsement of its 200 NM territorial boundaries without Chinese agreement, which at least isolates China. However, the U.N. is unlikely to rule on such a matter because of China's resistance.

 China is pushing. The U.S. is tap dancing until after the presidential election and developing strategy. The Philippines is fretting.

I personally believe it behooves the Philippines to act firmly. But that it is best to withhold from direct confrontation of China until after the U.S. presidential election.

The fundamental guideline is to imagine the seas within 200 NM as land. Would the Philippines allow China to put military troops on its shores?

If Chinese military ships entered the picture, my message to China would be clear: you are using force to occupy Philippine territory and we will use every means at our disposal to get your fighting ships out of Philippine seas. Use the "occupation" word liberally. It is about as offensive as you can get without firing a gun.

And I'd stop Chinese fishermen from ripping up the coral. That is extraordinarily offensive and the entire civilized world would back the Philippines on that. Replicate the stand-off over Scarborough Shoals but don't allow the affront to continue.

In other words, the Philippines should push back. 

U.S. and Philippine interests are fundamentally the same. Both lose if Chinese aggressive expansion is not stopped.

Roles: China = crook, Philippines = bad cop, U.S. = good cop.

The only way the Philippines could be the good cop would be if it slipped back into a beggar role that asks America to represent its military interests. The U.S. won't do that because it would cross with their number one aim, to bring China into the global community of nations as a cooperative participant.

The Philippines must stand tall. No choice. It can play its bad cop role better if it upgrades its military tools. You know, learns to swear and knock the crook upside the head.

Mr. Aquino is doing fine as far as I can tell. I'd only suggest he use the "occupation" word so that the Chinese understand how offensive their military incursions are.

Fighting over Islands

What are the principles by which claims to the Spratley Islands can be resolved? And how do we sort them out?


Possible Standards for Deciding Who Gets What

China argues territorial rights by historical precedent. It's fishermen have long fished these islands and they are within the Communist realm's 1949 "nine-dash map" of territorial claim. Therefore, they belong to China. Never mind that no other Asian Pacific country accepts the nine-dash delineation. The problem is that none protested it from 1949 to 1970.

Well, China is a nation of 1.35 billion residents and its resource demands are enormous. It is the big hungry dog of Planet Earth and the Philippines must seem like a cute little puppy to the beast. If not lunch . . .

The Philippines also argues for historical precedence, by prior various visitations and occupancy of some islands. It has all the argumentative weight of a 90 pound weakling with sand kicked into its eyes by the muscular brute pushing its way across the seas.

But history is the first of the conceivable standards we can use to sort this out:

• Standard 1: Historical Precedence

The fundamental truth is that no nation has inhabited most of these islands, although many have touched upon them. Habitation is virtually impossible because many are bare rocks and the logistics of support make residency difficult. The Philippines does have residents on Pag-asa Island near Palawan, and perhaps others as well. China recently objected to the establishment of a kindergarten school on  Pag-asa by Filipino residents. Clearly, the Chinese know nothing about the Philippines or where Filipinos live.  They are blindly pushing their ideological line of ownership of the seas.

Occupation is another possible standard, and favors the Philippines on at least one island.

• Standard 2: Occupation

The Philippines bases its case on UN rules which define a nation's territory to extend 200 miles from its shores: United National Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines signed the agreement In 1982*. China withdrew from the mandatory enforcement provision of UNCLOS in 2006. Still, the UN standard is a strong argument and is the one applied by the Philippines as it pursues oil exploration in the vicinity of the Spratley's Reed Bank (within 200 miles of the Philippines).

• Standard 3: Distance within 200 miles, per UNCLOS.

Standard three is geographic integrity. That is, is the disputed land somehow connected by land mass to the nation staking claim? Are the Spratleys an integral part of the Philippine Islands, for instance? We'll look at some topographical maps shortly. It appears that this standard does not help the Philippines. Nor does it help China.

• Standard 4: Geographic Integrity

There is another standard, and that is called pushing and shoving. It is the standard by which China is living as it argues historical precedence and insists its nine-dash line is definitive, although no other nation recognizes it.

• Standard 5: Biggest Bombs

Well, being the biggest bully is certainly no rational basis for adjudicating claims. Although it is a common one. It is how the American Indians lost their claim to the richest lands in the world. But we will set the matter aside, because if it ever comes into play, we will simply let the U.S. and China sort it out.

Also, it would seem to me that historical claim is wobbly for the simple reason that times have changed. The fact that China likes to fish near these islands has no relevance to the fact that it is oil that is now important, not fish. China's fishermen have no claim on the oil. Grabbing some fish is not tantamount to planting a flag and staking a land claim, or an oil claim, for China. Especially when the land is right next to some other country.  It is fishing. That's all it is.

The Lay of the Land . . . er, Seas

Here are four maps.

The first (MAP 1) is China's Nine-Dash Map. It is silly, is it not? Never in the history of the world has territorial claim been laid out by a four year-old's crayon drawing, with no foundation other than someone saying "I think it should go like this!"

MAP 1

The second Map (MAP 2) shows the general lay of the land and seas. China and the Philippines recently had a dustup over what the Philippines calls "Scarborough Shoal". This uninhabited but rich fishing area is 140 miles from Luzon. The Spratleys are more to the south. Neither is geographically contiguous to any nation, as the topography illustrates.

MAP 2

 The third Map (MAP 3) confirms that Scarborough Shoals is within the 200 mile UN territorial line. A rill (underground canyon) separates this island's topography from the Philippines.

MAP 3

 The last map (MAP 4) shows the Spratley Islands in relation to the 200 mile mark. The Philippines, under UN guidelines, has rightful claim to approximately one fourth of the islands, Malaysia also one fourth, and about half would reside outside the 200 mile mark for any nation.

MAP 4

JoeAm's Suggested Approach for the Philippines

The Philippines should adhere to its categorical rejection of the nine-dash map and encourage other nations also to oppose the claim as illogical and hostile to nations in the West Pacific. China must learn to respect other nations. Fishing in a sea does not stake a national claim to that sea. The US cannot claim the entire Pacific because its boats ply the waters there.

I am not a great fan of the Akbayan Party, but appreciated the perspective of Congressman Walden Bello as he responded to China's strange criticism of the new school at Pag-asa:

“Building a school within our territory cannot in any way undermine China’s sovereignty.  The Philippine government has all the right to make use of its own territory especially to provide social services to its people. It’s already bad that China is infringing on our sovereignty with its unimpeded incursions. Now it is virtually telling us where we can and cannot implement infrastructure projects within our territory. It is absurd and boorish."

Boorish China is.

President Aquino's approach is correct. He has stated that the Philippines considers the UN 200 mile boundary reasonable and enforceable. He can pursue a case for UN endorsement of Philippine territorial boundaries, whether China agrees or not. It isolates China in the international community. There is no other body qualified to mediate the dispute. Certainly China cannot be trusted to operate with good will toward the Philippines in one-on-one dialogue.

Beyond that, the Philippines should identify a specific set of civilian goals and gain U.S. concurrence with them. This should include: (1) oil exploration and drilling within the 200 mile zone, and (2) establishing needed residential services on islands where Filipinos live (e.g., schools, electricity, water).

The Philippines should continue to pursue a plan for shared development of resources on the portion of the Spratleys that is not within the boundaries of any other nation.

Is there a need for tact?

To a point.

The fundamental Philippine position should be low key. On the other hand, the Philippines should heartily protest Chinese bullying when it rears its ugly head, such as when an admiral recently stated that Chinese naval boats should attack Philippine vessels. The Chinese ambassador should be summoned to the Philippine Foreign Ministry every time this occurs, and a protest lodged. And every time China mentions the nine-dash line or territorial ownership of the entire South China Sea, that point should be rebutted as absurd by Foreign Affairs spokesmen.

President Aquino should keep his own thoughts out of public media. He should reserve his authority for very serious messages only. Like issuing an ultimatum for Chinese military ships to leave Philippine waters. If he speaks too often, he dilutes the power of his voice.

Scarborough Shoals is clearly within the Philippine territorial claim and China's nine-dash map looks as greedy and illogical as it appears in MAP 1. Yet China has fished there for years. How does the Philippines push fishing vessels out? That is almost impossible.  Position: allow Chinese vessels to fish while constantly monitoring for illegal fishing, removal of coral, or other damaging activities.

What would the Philippines do if China moved oil exploration equipment onto the islands? Or continued to defend against Philippine enforcement of illegal activities? Or patrolled in Philippine waters with Chinese military boats?

That is a different matter, and the Philippines would be wise to explore ideas with the United States. The Philippines is ill equipped to enforce any action against an armada of Chinese military vessels. But conceding any island within 200 miles would be a horrible precedent, and allowing the Chinese to operate militarily within Philippine waters is tantamount to occupation.

Beyond that, the Philippines should pursue its interests, and even allow or encourage further inhabitancy of any islands within the 200 mile range. It need not ask China for permission. It need not broadcast its plans and programs, in respect of China's very childish "face" issues. It should just do it.

In summary:

1. Pursue UN endorsement of Philippine claims
2. Rebut every senseless Chinese utterance through Foreign Affairs.
3. Hold the President's power in reserve for major issues.
4. Consult with the U.S. on specific hypothetical Chinese aggressions and prepare for them.
5. Occupy the habitable islands within 200 miles as a normal course of Philippine business.

_________

 *Philippine conditions attached to its 1982 signature on UNCLOS:

1. The signing of the Convention by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines under and arising from the Constitution of the Philippines.

2. Such signing shall not in any manner affect the sovereign rights of the Republic of the Philippines as successor of the United States of America, under and arising out of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of America of 10 December 1898, and the Treaty of Washington between the United States of America and Great Britain of 2 January 1930.

3. Such signing shall not diminish or in any manner affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States of America of 30 August 1951 and its related interpretative instruments; nor those under any other pertinent bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement to which the Philippines is a party.

4. Such signing shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines over any territory over which it exercises sovereign authority, such as the Kalayaan Islands, and the waters appurtenant thereto.

5. The Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and Presidential Decrees or Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves the right and authority to make any amendments to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippines Constitution.

6. The provisions of the Convention on archipelagic passage through sea lanes do not nullify or impair the sovereignty of the Philippines as an archipelagic State over the sea lanes and do not deprive it of authority to enact legislation to protect its sovereignty, independence and security.

7. The concept of archipelagic waters is similar to the concept of internal waters under the Constitution of the Philippines, and removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high sea from the rights of foreign vessels to transit passage for international navigation.

8. The agreement of the Republic of the Philippines to the submission for peaceful resolution, under any of the procedures provided in the Convention, of disputes under article 298 shall not be considered as a derogation of Philippines sovereignty.