HAT started as a
bold stunt by fishing magnate Tomas Cloma in 1956 has now escalated into a
national controversy complete with allegations of a political and economic
sell-out. It was Cloma who first took possession of some parts of the western
end of the Spratly Islands in 1956 that he discovered several years earlier to
create the sovereign state of "Kalayaan."
In time, Cloma’s independent state has been downgraded into a
one-barangay municipality of Palawan province but explorations conducted by
different countries since in the whole island chain have revealed a potential
mother lode of renewable and non-renewable resources. By one estimate, the
Spratlys hold 17.7 billion tons of natural gas making it the fourth-largest such
reserve in the world. Its seas provide almost a tenth of the total world catch.
Just these two resources are estimated to be worth over a trillion dollars.
It is no surprise then that the entire barren and godforsaken
area is being disputed in whole or in part by several nations. And this has put
into focus the absence of a bill clearly defining our national territory,
especially since the deadline set under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) is fast approaching.
While all the claimants, except Brunei, maintain a military
presence in the area, there is hardly any danger that the situation will
deteriorate into a shooting war. For now, we face no real military threat from
either China or Vietnam, both of whom claim the entire island chain.
It is true that both these nations are considered military
powerhouses. China has an estimated 3.3 million active duty troops and 4.8
million reserve and paramilitary forces. And, even though Vietnam has roughly
the same population as our country, it is no military pushover. It has almost
half a million active troops and another 9.1 million in reserves and
paramilitary forces.
But neither China nor Vietnam has the naval asserts now to
effectively enforce their claims over the disputed Spratly Islands. Just like
us, their troops are limited to their major land masses. None of these countries
have the men and ships that would give them the capability of conducting
military excursions and fully-armed battle groups like the Americans are doing
now in the Middle East.
Until the 1990’s, the Chinese navy played a subordinate role
to the People’s Liberation Army. While China has previously purchased some
old-model aircraft carriers from other countries, these currently serve more as
floating amusement parks for tourists. It does have a sizable force of naval
destroyers. But it has clearly made its intentions clear about having a "blue
water" navy to deal with military contingencies far beyond its coastal waters.
And, with its rapidly growing economy, it is finding no shortage of funds to
achieve this goal. Vietnam, on the other hand, has a few naval frigates and some
patrol boats.
Thus, for the foreseeable future, our particular dispute over
the Spratly Islands with China and Vietnam will remain a matter for the
diplomats to resolve. Sadly, UNCLOS did not provide a method to resolve
overlapping territorial claims such as what we have in the Spratlys while both
China and Vietnam have rejected our offer to have the matter resolved by the
World Maritime Tribunal. The settlement of the dispute can only be done by the
claimants themselves on the negotiating table.
Before we can even stake our claim on part of the Spratly islands, we need to
define it. That is why we need to pass a baseline bill defining our national
territory and give our diplomats something to work with. Congress should not
wait until the time that the rapidly growing economies of China and Vietnam give
them the military muscle to resolve this issue outside of the negotiating table.
This is not just about a few islands but also about a potential treasure trove
of resources crucial to our development.