China to deprive Phl of food, fuel

Sen. Joker Arroyo wonders why ASEAN allies have sat still about China’s encroachment in the Philippines’ Scarborough Shoal. “We have a problem: we’re being bullied by China,” he assesses the standoff. “Not even a resolution of concern or of sympathy ... we are left to fend for ourselves. What happened to us? We’re like orphans, without allies. That’s our dilemma.”

The answer lies in part in the treasonous 2004 Joint Marine Seismic Understanding (JMSU) of Manila with Beijing. Before that was inked, ASEAN looked up to the Philippines and Vietnam to lead in containing China’s expansionism in the South China Sea. The ten members signed in 2002 the Manila-sponsored Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. It called for a united stance against any Chinese aggression.

Eighteen months later, however, Manila broke ranks with ASEAN. Against the Constitution, then-President Gloria Arroyo (no kin of the senator) let China explore oil in “disputed waters” of the West Philippine (South China) Sea. More dubious, “disputed waters” referred not to the Spratly Isles at the edge of the Philippines’ 200-mile exclusive economic zone, counterclaimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. Five-sixths of the Manila-Beijing JMSU area covered erstwhile undisputed zones closer to Luzon and Palawan. These were Scarborough (120 miles), Recto Bank including Rajah Soliman Reef and Quirino Atoll (80 miles), Sabina Shoal (70 miles), and Mischief Reef (130 miles, grabbed by China in 1995). The JMSU lapsed in 2008 with Manila getting no copy of the seabed survey, despite its $5-million (P250-million) contribution, because it did not sign up for another three years. Worse, by conceding the zones as disputed, Arroyo emboldened China in 2009 unilaterally to declare ownership of Scarborough, Recto, Soliman, Quirino, and Sabina, under its unfounded nine-dash line map.

In exchange for giving up Philippine waters and marine resources, the Arroyo admin got from China $4 billion in loans. At least 20-percent kickbacks were taken from such proceeds as railways, ports, and mines. Had it not been exposed, the NBN-ZTE deal would have netted P10 billion in “tong-pats” from the P17-billion loan. ASEAN felt betrayed; thus, its present wariness about Philippine “initiatives”.

*      *      *

In arrogating Scarborough and other territories, China is depriving the Philippines of food, oil and gas, and other sea riches.

Under the UN law of the sea, a state may explore and use marine resources in an EEZ up to 200 miles from its coast or territorial waters. If China succeeds in grabbing Scarborough, Recto and Sabina, it would extend its EEZ far beyond its coast. It would push the Philippine western EEZ to the shores of Luzon and Palawan.

Coastal folk would lose their municipal fishing waters up to 16 miles (30 kilometers) from the outermost shore. Aquaculturists may no longer harvest seaweeds and other industrial raw materials, or dive for pearls offshore. Even tourists in beach resorts would be forbidden from jet-skiing or surfboard-sailing out to sea. They’d all be confined to coves.

Tuna that spawn in Tubbataha Reef in the internal Sulu Sea would no longer grow to reach the Celebes Sea south of Mindanao. Chinese fishers would net the tuna swimming out to northwest Palawan and down to Borneo. China would steal the oil wells in Recto Bank and natural gas fields in Malampaya Sound. It would restrict maritime routes and pollute the waters on the western Philippine seaboard.

That is the implication if the Philippines does not assert — through all means, especially diplomacy — its sovereignty and national security.

*      *      *

No wonder SM Supermalls president Annie Garcia in a recent TV interview kept saying “uprooting,” and not “axing” or “felling” of trees. Contrary to cries of critics, the SM-Baguio would not be cutting down 182 of 2,000 pine and alnus trees behind the shopping mall after all. Instead it would be “earth-balling” them for transfer to another park where, with luck and care, they would continue to grow. And SM has the proper government permit to do so, under certain stringent conditions.

This came to light Monday, when the Baguio court allowed SM to replant one pine and 40 alnus (moist-soil) saplings already earth-balled last week.

The natural resources department earlier had allowed the transfer of the 182 trees by balling; that is, carefully digging out and fertilizing the roots and soil. This is because, for structural safety, SM must reinforce the multi-story mall against surrounding soil erosion. Concrete riprap would be erected on the sloping vacant lot, Garcia says. And since the trees would be transferred, SM will use the cleared area as expanded shopping area and parking lot with roof garden, to ease the traffic and pollution around it. Underneath would be dug a seven-million-liter rainwater catchment, to prevent flooding in lower roads. The water would be used for firefighting and park watering. And SM would plant 50,000 more trees aside from the 182 earth-balled ones. All in all, the greening would cost P1.2 billion.

Amid Monday’s clarification, however, the Catholic bishopric of Baguio added to the muddle about the misreported tree axing. Allegedly it called for a boycott of, and celebration of Masses at the SM mall. But doesn’t it own the Porta Vaga mall beside the Baguio Cathedral, a stone’s throw from SM?

*      *      *

To better understand today’s events — like the indictments for the NBN-ZTE scam and election fraud, or China’s aggressions in the West Philippine Sea — grab a copy of Exposés: Investigative Reporting for Clean Government. The compilation of selected Gotcha columns provides a backdrop on the sensational cases, and backstage glimpses on the dramatis personae. Exposés is available at most National Bookstore and Powerbooks branches.

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected].