10 truths from The Hague verdict | as easy as ABC

It is a David who threw a determinative stone against a Goliath – but this is not that kind of story. Unfortunately, the stone the Philippines threw will not make China fall back from Philippine territory anytime soon. At best the stone hits a gong that creates a loud sound heard internationally, for the rest of the reasonable people in the world to hear — the same people who are nowadays more anxious than ever but more determined as well to stand up against terror, big or small, on land, air, or water. Allow me this Sunday to share 10 worthy lessons from the 500-page ruling of the United Nations Court of Arbitration in The Hague, in favor of the Philippines:

1. The nine-dash line is a lie. This is a unilateral claim first asserted by China through a map submitted to the United Nations in May 2009 (against which the Philippines immediately protested). It lacked the elements of a valid historic claim because there is no acquiescence by other coastal states, and there was no sufficient passage of time to put beyond doubt the existence of the right and the agreement of the affected states. The court noted that the other states do not even know the nature and extent of China’s claims.
   
   
2. Assuming China has historic rights, the same was superseded by UNCLOS. China is not only a member of the United Nations, it signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) on Dec. 10, 1982 and ratified it in 1996. The UNCLOS is thus not only persuasive, it is binding and must be complied with by China.
   
   
3. Even if China did not appear before the tribunal, the Court can still rule. The Tribunal admitted that they found it difficult to fully probe an issue despite China’s refusal to respond. The tribunal cannot decide merely on the Philippine submissions but must satisfy itself that the claim is based on facts and law.
   
   
4. China’s position was heard in the proceedings. The court made use of publicly available information, such as the Position Paper of China made public on Dec. 7, 2015. The former Chinese ambassador also submitted two letters, and the current ambassador, four letters directing the members of the Tribunal to statements of the Chinese government and the publicly available materials. (In substance, China participated.)
   
   
5. Vietnam supported the proceedings. While it did not participate in the case, Vietnam formally made a submission to support the proceedings as valid. Other countries who requested were granted observer status in the case,
   
   
6. China should have secured from the Philippines the permit to fish. The disputed areas fall within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (within 200 miles from Philippine baseline). Thus the permits issued by China to Chinese fishermen are not valid because it is the Philippines that has the sovereign rights. On the contrary, Filipino fishermen were prevented from fishing in the Panatag shoals since 2012.
   
   
7. China enjoys limited rights in the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). China can enjoy navigation and overflight, can lay submarine cables and pipelines, and practice other lawful uses of the sea, even within the Philippine EEZ. (As we all know, they did a bit more, like build islands and airstrips, among others.)
   
   
8. China violated UNCLOS by destroying marine environment. China destroyed coral reefs through its constructions and tolerated the acts of its nationals in harvesting giant clams and turtles, and in using explosives in fishing. This is not a sovereignty issue but a breach of environmental obligations under the UNCLOS.
   
   
9. The disputed reefs and shoals are within 125 miles from the Philippine baseline. Scarborough (Panatag) is 116.2 nautical miles off Zambales, while Mischief Reef is 125.4 and Second Thomas Shoal is 104.4, both off Palawan — all of them several hundreds of miles from China. All of them are well within the Philippines’ 200-mile EEZ and well beyond China’s EEZ.
   
   
10. If these disputed reefs and shoals were islands, the court would not rule on them. These low water elevations, which disappear during high tide, cannot sustain human life. There is no source of vegetation or drinkable water. If they were really islands capable of human habitation, the court would not have ruled that they were within the Philippine EEZ.

The court did not elaborate on this last point, but it seems that if they were islands, and humans dwelled there, those inhabitants would have been capable of establishing community and government and communicating what their country is (or we can find out if they speak Filipino or Chinese).

The other brutal facts are: China is permanent member of the UN and a part of the Security Council, the enforcement arm of the UN. (Will China veto actions or will it be asked to desist, for fairness’ sake?) Whoever subjects China to economic sanctions will also effectively sanction themselves economically. China is prepared or does not care if war erupts in the disputed territory — anyway, it’s only our territory that will be damaged while our people in Zambales or Palawan will potentially be hurt. And the Chinese territory will be safe, and the Chinese people will be sleeping soundly, several hundreds of miles away.

Will the world come to the rescue of one David in the Asia Pacific, or will they tolerate the situation for short-term gains? Will the other Davids, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia, Brunei, and other states in the claimed “South China” Sea find their voice, and find their own vital stones? Can we fish again in our own waters? Will the giant shock the world, sit down and talk? While we wait for answers, we realize that patience is not only a virtue – it’s our only choice.

They lost the case. It would be easier if they do not lose face.