‘Why give China a claim to a
resource which is exclusively owned by the Philippines?’
Justice Secretary Raul
Gonzalez might have let the cat out of the bag when he said yesterday that China
is offering to un- dertake joint oil exploration with the Philippines in the
disputed Spratlys. Gonzalez intended his disclosure to refute claims that Gloria
Arroyo has "sold out" Philippine territory in exchange for $4 billion in dirty
loans from China. The unintended consequence is an indirect confirmation of that
a secret "Spratly Deal" is being negotiated or has been already concluded but
awaits signing.
Let us backtrack a bit. In September 2004, the Philippines
and China, through their national oil companies, signed an agreement to jointly
conduct seismic surveys inside 142,886 square kilometers in an area loosely
known as the Spratlys. Vietnam protested the agreement, but eventually came
aboard in March 2005.
The Philippine government has refused to make public the
seismic survey agreement, saying it is bound by a "confidentiality clause" in
the document. Of particular concern is Annex A which sets out the baselines of
the 142,886-square kilometer covered by the agreement.
Recent reports in academic circles have it that 1/6th of that
area, abutting the Malampaya gas field, is outside the claims of China and
Vietnam and falls squarely inside the Philippine continental shelf and 200-mile
exclusive economic zone.
We have a bootleg copy of the agreement (sans the annexes)
and one provision that attracted our attention is its three-year effectivity.
The agreement says in the event parties elect to enter into "a more definitive
agreement," the negotiations should take place during the term of the agreement
or 90 days after the expiration of the agreement.
Vietnam signed the agreement on March 14, 2005, so the
three-year effectivity expires March 14, 2008, that is, Friday next week. Plus
90 days, the period for new negotiations ends middle of June.
What conceivably would the new agreements cover? Seismic
studies are done to identify likely oil-bearing structures. So any deal based on
results of the three-year seismic study could only be related to oil
exploration.
That’s selling out Philippine territory twice over, with huge
economic consequences if there are indeed more commercial oil deposits in
the area. Why did we stress more? Simple. The offshore northwest Palawan area is
already a commercially producing oil field (Malampaya is the proof).
Why give China a claim to a resource which is exclusively owned by the
Philippines? Yes, that’s rhetorical question, for we don’t expect to get an
answer from an administration led by congenital liars.
