Original Posting June 24, 2017
We may not always be aware that China, while on the rise against U.S. imperial rule, itself has territorial disputes with so many countries – a dozen or more. What we should not easily forget, however, is that when it comes to this kind of disputes of territoriality China has never had any hesitation or qualms to assert its stand even to the point of waging war – bloody, shooting wars and not merely talk followed by more talk. Nor has it ever worried about the legal niceties accepted by the community of nations when it comes to its assertions of sovereignty – a fact the Philippines recently learned painfully in the so-called South China Sea Arbitration Case that, indeed, ushered a favorable judgment for the Philippines under the auspices of the world’s Permanent Court of Arbitration. China’s response to the Court Judgment, however, was open contempt through continuous belligerent acts in the affected area covered by the Judgment.
Despite Supreme Court Senior Justice Carpio’s pronouncements, hasn’t the national pain been assuaged by the President’s line in this regard that China is just too big and powerful to buck at this time? And, anyway, hasn’t China promised the anti-American-talking President billions upon billions of dollars in development loans and investments? Some have openly suggested that we should just swallow our pride and stop talking about our claims to some rocks thousands of nautical miles away if only so that the Northern Goliath may be appeased and favor us with monies we badly need. Yes, some said, be smart like Pakistan. China has territorial disputes with all the nations it shares a border with and eight other countries. An exception is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which it keeps on its payroll and the northern part of Korea which it subsidizes in all its needs from the smallest toothpick to its frightening antiballistic missiles.
Can’t you then understand China when it sees America moving its western borders from California to Hawaii and thence, for the past hundred years across thousands of miles to the South China Sea, or at least that part some call the “West Philippine Sea?” The word “border” is a foreign term in this archipelago because we have none – nothing solid anyway, all liquid and indefensible coastlines, or so it seems. China saw at the turn of last century the utter cruelty and absolute victory of the American invading forces over some idealistic Filipinos defending their shores and their new Republic and the thorough colonization of land and mind that followed that military victory.
From China’s point of view, the invading forces merely changed their name to “visiting forces” but they are still in possession and control which, they know, when it comes to ownership, is “nine-tenths of the law.” In sum, the Chinese sees America to be the Number One neighboring threat to its sovereignty. But can America ever be ousted from its century-old hold on the Philippine islands? Although no one has ever openly talked about it the true picture hereabouts must first of all include this bigger and real picture which is the Sino-American “border conflict.”
Given all this, can you even imagine China’s exuberance in meeting for the first time an anti-American-talking Philippine President, who fosters a coalition government with communists of their type? At long last, at least up to the time of the Battle for Marawi, it looked like a new chapter of Philippine history was being inaugurated. To borrow a Chinese proverb, this chapter was going to be entitled: “A good neighbor is more important than a distant relative.” But it remained to be seen – whether Duterte could truly be absolutely in charge, given the country’s Constitution, its separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, a military strongly grounded as guardians of constitutionalism and legality and an active minority of morally oriented faith-based groups that never cease in their peculiar ways to influence and awaken a passive majority despite the latter’s vulnerability to the climate of authoritarian populism systematically fostered by the administration. More of this later.
Let us first take a look at China’s border issues and attitudes to appreciate how real this Chinese
Border mentality is up till now.
China-Russia. – Surely one recalls how some of us grew up on the notion that China and the Soviet Union were best of “friends,” barring none. Weren’t they the two biggest communist countries on Earth, helping each other every way they could? Yes, but when it came to the territorial imperative, China went to war against its bosom friend, mentor and benefactor – a war that is not yet over half a century later. And what exactly is this “border conflict?” According to Russia it is about 160,000 square kilometres of “border” still unilaterally claimed by China, despite China signing several agreements in times past.
China-India. – China’s first Premier Chou en-Lai was internationally known to be personally close to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Together with Indonesia’s Sukarno they organized the famous Bandung Conference that launched the would-be countervailing force against Western neocolonialism. The historic effort hardly got off the ground. It crashed on China’s territorial sense that is now known as the Sino-Indian border conflict – a war not merely of words but of guns and tanks and what have they. They have never stopped accusing each other of encroaching into each other’s territory. How often, too, have Indian opposition parties accused their ruling administrations of being “weak, cowardly and incompetent” for not driving Chinese troops off?
According to India, China illegally occupies 38,000 sq km (Aksai Chin) of land in Jammu & Kashmir. It also holds 5,180 km of Indian territory in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir under the Sino-Pak agreement of 1963. At the heart of the Sino-Indian boundary dispute is this issue of Arunachal Pradesh (90,000 sq km), which China describes as “Southern Tibet”. Beijing is demanding that at least the Tawang Tract of Arunachal Pradesh, if not the whole of the state, be transferred to China.
China and India just haven’t been able to agree on how to carve up the Himalayas since they fought over the border in 1962 and the decades and years that followed have only seen China flexing its military muscles more and more. On coming to power a few years back, Chinese leader Mr. Xi Jinping wasted no time in exerting control over the People’s Liberation Army, even though he is the only civilian on its 11-man Central Military Commission. He launched a campaign to re-focus the armed forces to “fight and win wars” and has not shied away from other border disputes, such as those with Japan.
China-Japan. – But why Japan? Where is the conflict? It is in parts of the East China Sea, particularly the Senkaku Islands and also, on occasion, the Ryukyu Islands, on the grounds that the completely independent Kingdom of Ryukyu was once a vassal state of China. Actually, the Kingdom of Ryukyu terminated tributary relations with China way back in 1874. But the Chinese mind is: you were once part of us; you still are up to now.
China-Vietnam. – A more “interesting case” is that of Vietnam. Didn’t China go all the way supporting Vietnam in the latter’s fight against the United States of America culminating in the Vietnamese victory of 1975? Can one forget how only two years later China and Vietnam shocked the world with their serious, bloody, shooting war all because China, in the words of its Premier Deng Hsiao Peng, was bent on “teaching Vietnam a lesson” in border sensitivities 101? China was claiming large parts of Vietnam on the basis again of historical precedent (Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644). The claims extended to the Macclesfield Bank, the Paracel Islands, parts of the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands.
Also worth noting:
China-Kazakhstan: There are continual unilateral claims by China on Kazakhstan territory, despite new agreements in China’s favor signed every few years.
China-Tajikistan: The Chinese base their claims on historical precedent (Qing Dynasty, 1644-1912).
China-Kyrgyzstan: China claims the majority of Kyrgyzstan on the grounds that it was unfairly forced to cede the territory (which it had formerly conquered) to Russia in the 19th century.
China- Mongolia: China claims all of Mongolia on historical precedent (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368). In fact, Mongolia, under Genghis Khan, occupied China.
China-Afghanistan: China still encroaches on the Afghan province of Badakhshan despite a bilateral treaty of 1963.
China- Nepal: China claims parts of Nepal dating back to the Sino-Nepalese War in 1788-1792. China claims Nepal to be part of Tibet, and therefore part of China.
China-Bhutan: China claimsBhutanese enclaves in Tibet, namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, Gesur, Gezon, Itse Gompa, Khochar, Nyanri, Ringung, Sanmar, Tarchen and Zuthulphuk. Also Kula Kangri and mountainous areas to the west of this peak, plus the western Haa District of Bhutan.
China-North Korea: Baekdu Mountain and Jiandao. China has also on occasion claimed all of North Korea on historical grounds (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368).
China – South Korea: China claims South Korea parts of the East China Sea. In the same manner China has also on occasion claimed all of South Korea on historical grounds (Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368).
China-Taiwan: China, of course, claims all of Taiwan, but particular disputes are: Macclesfield Bank, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, parts of the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands.
And currently above all – The South China Sea: In a formal notification to the United Nations in 2009, China, through its so-called nine-dash line, laid claim to more than 80% of the South China Sea. It then sent vessels to take control of Scarborough Shoal, which is 448.2 nautical miles from its mainland and only 116.2 NM from the Philippines – well within the Philippines’ 200NM exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Choosing the use of peaceful resolution of disputes the Philippines went to the world Tribunal, which China snubbed. On 12 July 2016, the Tribunal issued its Award on the Merits, agreeing with the submissions by the Philippines.
The Award issued pursuant to the compulsory procedure under Section2 of Part XV of the UNCLOS (the world’s “Constitution for the Oceans”) is binding on China. China is obligated to comply with the ruling. If it does not, and it does not, it finds itself in clear and open violation of its international legal obligations, which apparently it does not much care about. So how can the Philippines secure its maritime entitlements and ultimately its territorial integrity in the face of China’s legal and diplomatic intransigence? Duterte has publicly taken the stance that he can’t do anything about it. The Philippine military, however, from the remarks of the DND Secretary and the AFP Brass, takes a different view. Some say the Philippine military does so confident that imperial America won’t let go. They feel it their obligation to be guardians of the State and of the Nation.
With that big picture one can now look more deeply into the recent Battle for Marawi. According to the US Embassy in Manila US special operations forces were/are assisting the Philippine military with operations in their fight against the Jihadist militants “at the request of the government of the Philippines.” President Duterte, however, publicly admitted to being clueless. He did not know about nor did he ask for American help. It was now quite clear. What had been always denied by the immediately preceding administration was true after all – that an internationalist Islamist jihadism has taken root in the Philippines, in the specific form of allegiance to the worldview and the sociopolitical program of the Caliphate of the ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah (DI) or Islamic State (IS). Also quite clear was that the communist Moro Army Committee (MAC) which is organic to the NPA or New People’s Army helped guide, train, and provision the jihadists – the so-called DIWM or ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyah Wilayat al-Mashriq, which in English is “the Eastern Province of the Islamic State” – and fought alongside them against the government forces. All the big talk of China and Duterte were naught in the Battle for Marawi. Only the US Special Forces and their local, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, really mattered in the fight against the international jihadists. Their unity of command and control made it possible to put up a good fight at all.
Where to now? China continues to be in control of those disputed rocks and islands in the West Philippine Sea but the US is in control and possession of the Philippines proper. The biggest irony of all is that the original meaning of the ruling party – the PDP – was “Pilipinas Dapat sa Pilipino” or “Philippines for the Filipinos.” But, perhaps, that was long ago. Now is the time for a new start. How will it come about? Who will be the actors this time? What is sure is that whatever scenario comes on the table cannot ignore this bigger picture of the conflicting Sino-US Forces. FINIS