OFWs and Aliens: A Nation Unto Themselves

It is amusing sometimes, the chain of thoughts that generates a blog. This one started because I was trying to write a different one.

I was going to resolve the "Top 12 Filipino Entertainers" list by ranking those entertainers who I think have carved out a special place of distinction in the Philippines. So this is how the list was shaping up when I hit a wall:

1. Manny Pacquiao
2. Kris Aquino
3. Jessica Sanchez
4. Lady Gaga

Well, you see my problem right away.

Without question, if you are within earshot of a conglomeration of huge black weatherworn speakers blasting music across the Pacific from your home town, you will hear Lady Gaga prancing her sexual stuff. The lady has beat, and Filipinos love it, along with the raw sexual language and irreverence and power.

Celine Dion would be on the list as well. And the "One Man Band" doing his Waray Waray stuff for the entire Visayas.

Well, the list crosses borders, does it not? It must.

Then I reflected that my readership would probably understand the list, and accept it. But the homelanders would not.

And from that, it struck me that there is a "Group C". If you read the prior blog, you will know that Group A are the broad masses with shallow engagement in issues and Group B are the educated self-starters, internationally clued in, who read and think analytically and solve problems.

I herein propose that there is a Group C, and I belong to that group. It is a group of people who may or may not be citizens of the Philippines, but have Philippines in their soul. They share their lives with more than one nation. It includes me and Edgar and Cha and European Josephivo and New Yorker Attila and even beningo of Get Real Post and our OFW fans in Washington and all over the place.

The paper we all carry that designates "citizenship" is important. Indeed, we have pride in it, whatever national name is printed on the cover. But there is a different allegiance at work here.

It is like the difference between love of wife and love of family.

We'll die for either.

We are wed eternally to the nation of our citizenship.  But the Philippines is our family. Yours. Mine. No difference. I married into it I suppose. You who are overseas moved out of the house but still have an anchor there.

So Group C has a different set of standards than even Group B. These are standards built on separation from the platforms that most stand on.

A person who skydives is a different person after his first jump.

We have all jumped.

It seems to me that Group C is closely allied with people of other nations who have also made the leap. I am more closely aligned with a Mexican migrant looking for a day job in front of the Home Depot in Pasadena than I am to Cousin Sandy landlocked in the small town of her birth in Colorado.

Group C is "Global Man" where Man of course includes woman. For Global Man, national allegiance is more an intellectual commitment than an imposed obedience. It is of the heart, either way. But perhaps Global Man has shed a few more tears behind the commitment, both bitter and sweet.

We have all let go of something to gain something richer.

And most of us have learned to appreciate differences, not rebel against them.

Those still attached to home may either admire or be jealous of those who took the leap. Although I suppose envy does contain a measure of admiration.

And I suspect that many of us in the nation of Global Man would find it difficult going back. Well, maybe not difficult. It would be easy for me to return to the United States. 

But I rather think we would be somehow emptier.

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.

The Territorial Integrity of the Philippines, or What's Up with Sabah?

The world, when it was larger and not so overcrowded, was a contentious place, an arena for combat over land. Imperialistic ambitions ran rabid as empires were struck, then lost. The Romans, the British, the Germans, the Moors and Huns and Ruskies.  Visions of world domination inspired the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. After all, they had stormed China and subjected the hordes there to Japanese rules,  "my way or the slaughter way". Why stop there when the Emperor was descendant of God and needed to be put in his proper global throne?

Then, after World War II, the world shrank. And imperialism tucked its ugly tail between its grubby greedy legs and hobbled off to sulk. The Soviet Union imploded under the weight of a moribund economy and its restive states.

Now, international borders are frozen in place. They are well recognized and generally well respected.

The United Nations struggles to impose harmony but has accomplished one thing: a clear and widely accepted understanding that there must be global rules. And civility, to the extent man can do that.

So now we are dealing with the remnants of all the nations in the world being tossed up in the air over a thousand year span, landing where they are now, with chips and dust and stones flying about here and there.

That's what the tussle between China and the other nations rimming the West Philippine Sea, aka South China Sea, is all about. A little settling of the dust in the steady trek of history passing before our eyes like a ghost. Here then gone.

Sabah, Malaysia (Circle)

Oh, yes, we still have the rabble-rouser states, those with glorious hallucinations that they are the heartland of righteousness, some kind of ego-bound centrality akin to that of a two-year old: Iran in the Middle East, Venezuela in South America and North Korea in Asia. But they will fall to the wayside under cannon or economic travail. We need not worry too much about this axis of the delusional. The only question is the number of needless deaths they will cause through their overbearing but futile need to impose their thinking on others.

The Philippines has two territorial disputes on its hands, not just the one regarding oil-rich islands and China. China is the simpler one. It can be resolved by enforcing the U.N.'s 200 mile sea boundary. China must retreat from its outrageous claim to the entire sea. If the world cannot impose discipline on the Chinese, China will soon be claiming chunks of space because its astronauts are there now. China's pushy self-certainty makes Filipinos appear almost humble.

The more complex international territorial dispute is the Philippine claim to a sizable chunk of Malaysia, the state of Sabah, or North Borneo. This is directly related to the problems the Philippines is having with Muslims on Mindanao, as it is the Moro population of the Philippines that lives both in Sabah and Mindanao. Sabah is very near to Palawan and the Philippine island chain connecting to Mindanao as the map photo over there shows.

The background on Sabah

The Sultanate of Sulu agreed in 1878 to lease the Sabah territory to The British North Borneo Company in return for arms and defensive support to fight the Spanish. The Sultanate conveyed full title and rights to Sabah to the Philippines in 1962. Malaysia disregarded the conveyance and assimilated Sabah within the newly formed Republic of Malaysia in 1963, along with Singapore, Malaya and Sarawak. The Philippines broke off relations with Malaysia. An accord between Malaysia and the Philippines in 1966 expressed agreement that the residents of Sabah should be able to determine where they belonged, but it appears to have gone nowhere.

President Marcos' Army trained a team of Muslims as saboteurs to infiltrate Sabah in 1968 but the troops rebelled when they learned they might have to kill Muslim relatives. They tried to flee but were rounded up and shot. Anywhere from 28 to 200 of the men were executed by the Army in the famed Jabidah massacre. The massacre provoked angry rebellion against the Philippine government by Mindinao Muslims. Some of these rebels aligned with overseas terrorists who trained them to be really nasty in their fighting style. This in turn laid the groundwork for U.S. engagement to help put down the "terrorist" uprising.

That's where we are today. Fighting over a cause that has passed into irrelevance to mainstream Filipinos, Sabah.

Philippine presidents have not pursued the Sabah matter in the interest of building stronger commercial relationships with Malaysia. But the claim still exists. My guess is they also saw the geographical illogic of this land being part of their island nation, but were not foolish enough to concede the territory to Malaysia and incur the wrath of Mindanao Muslims.

So the dispute gets faded and tattered and irrelevant through disuse, much like China's nine-dash map. The one that says the whole sea is theirs.

The Philippines is now working actively to get Filipinos living in Sabah duly registered as Philippine citizens, with passports. There are as many as 300,000, or possibly more, migrant Filipino workers in Sabah working the farms there. According to a Wikileaks memo from the U.S. Embassy in Malaysia, Malaysia considers the farm workers, most of whom are Muslim, to be a source of potential trouble if they become politically restive. Some think there may actually be as many as 750,000 Filipinos in country illegally. This could crystallize as a huge issue if Mindanao gains greater autonomy. Muslims in Sabah may want it, too. Some Malaysian officials consider Muslim migrant workers burdens because they use social services and are prone to violence. But agricultural businesses need the workers.

JoeAm's distillation

I have for some time had trouble with the notion of a state within a state, as a greatly autonomous Southwestern Mindanao would be. This Sabah matter clarifies for me the risks associated with granting special rights to a given religion. If greater independence is granted Muslims on Mindanao, the demand for independence will shoot directly to Malaysia in the belief that Muslims should also control their own destiny there.

Give an inch, lose a mile. And on and on, the infestation of violence spreads.

Strange way to honor God.

I grant the Aquino Administration kudos for working quietly behind the scenes to try to strike a framework for agreement with Muslim groups that fits within the Constitution. To find a way for peace to arrive and with it, commercial development and jobs and wealth.

But I fear it won't work.

It won't work as long as those of faith believe their faith stands above other faiths or the secular state. And, therefore, non-believers are to be subjected to scorn and discipline.

What rights would a Catholic in an autonomous Muslim Mindanao have? People like Ben K and Bong V argue for a "final solution" that has the mass deportation of non-Muslims from the autonomous region. Do you realize how Hitlerian that is? Ethnic cleansing all over again. In 2012. In the Philippines.

Oh, the Philippines will work out its deal with little regard for what JoeAm thinks, for sure. But whatever they come up with will not work. And Malaysia will pay the price, too.

Face it, we will be fighting extremist Muslims until moderate Muslims take over the job of disciplining their kind, and teaching their brothers . . . and their sisters . . . the virtues of compassion and courtesy toward those who are not Muslim . . .

It is best to define the border of the Philippines clearly, a 200 mile line around the land, give up claim to Sabah like China needs to give up the ancient 9-dash map, and defend the State with guns and drones against those who are headstrong and uncivilized.

_____________________

References:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabah

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/40455/philippine-embassy%E2%80%99s-passport-mobile-teams-in-sabah-until-june-30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabidah_massacre