Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys in ancient maps

A timely reminder given the now very convoluted discourse about China because of our renewed, refreshed, “special relationship” with the US.

The frame of reference for the 1900 Treaty of Washington’s definition of the Philippine territory was the Murillo Velarde map, which included the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, But still, China’s position is that Philippine territory is limited to the islands enclosed by the polygonal lines drawn in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Justice Carpio said that China did not participate in the Arbitral proceedings, but “by officially submitting its Position Paper to the Arbitral Tribunal, China expressly and formally recognized that Philippine territory is defined by three treaties, including the 1900 Treaty of Washington… China is forever estopped from claiming that Philippine territory is limited to the islands enclosed by the Treaty of Paris.” 

By AMELIA H.C. YLAGAN  

. . . . Justice Carpio, who was the guest of honor and main speaker at the Alliance Française, said “the 1734 Murillo Velarde map is a living document because it determines Philippine territory today, that is, Philippine territory cannot be determined without this map.” This oldest Philippine map of “Las Yslas Filipinas” is the official Spanish Government map showing Philippine territory during the Spanish regime. It shows Panacot (Scarborough Shoal) and Los Bajos de Paragua (the Spratlys) as part of Philippine territory, Justice Carpio said. None of these islands drawn in this Murillo Velarde map appeared in China’s maps from centuries ago.

“The map debunks once and for all, the Chinese historical narrative that China has owned the South China Sea for 200 years. Now the world knows better. Thanks to the definitive ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal, China’s historical narrative has been exposed as fake news. The map proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal were part of the Philippine territory as early as 1734,” Justice Carpio had said at a lecture at the Ateneo de Manila University in 2017.

At the Alliance Française opening, Justice Carpio explained that the aggressiveness of China in claiming the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal started with the 1898 Treaty of Paris, after the Spanish-American war, when Spain ceded to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands in exchange for $20 million to ratify the Treaty. Spain might have missed the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal, putting these outside the western side of the polygonal lines of the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris.

But the United States noticed the exclusion, and demanded a revision of the map for the revised treaty, called the 1900 Treaty of Washington, which provided that “Spain relinquishes to the United all title and all claim of title, which she may have had at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace of Paris, to any and all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, lying outside the lines described in Article III of that Treaty and particularly to the islands of Cagayan (Mapun), Sulu and Sibutu and their dependencies, and agrees that all such islands shall be comprehended in the cession of the Archipelago as fully as if they had been expressly included within those lines.”

The frame of reference for the 1900 Treaty of Washington’s definition of the Philippine territory was the Murillo Velarde map, which included the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal, But still, China’s position is that Philippine territory is limited to the islands enclosed by the polygonal lines drawn in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Justice Carpio said that China did not participate in the Arbitral proceedings, but “by officially submitting its Position Paper to the Arbitral Tribunal, China expressly and formally recognized that Philippine territory is defined by three treaties, including the 1900 Treaty of Washington… China is forever estopped from claiming that Philippine territory is limited to the islands enclosed by the Treaty of Paris.”

It was only in 1947 that China started to claim the Spratlys, Justice Carpio said. Scarborough Shoal appears in a 1948 Chinese map, named Si-ka-ba-luo, a Chinese transliteration of the English name Scarborough, The shoal was named by Captain Philip D’Auvergne, whose East India Company ship East Indiaman Scarborough grounded on one of the rocks on Sept. 12, 1784, before sailing on to China although it already had a Spanish name recorded in the 1734 Murillo Velarde map of Spanish Philippines (W. Gilbert [1804] A New Nautical Directory for the East-India and China Navigation .., pp.480-482).

The Carta Hydrographica y Chorographica de las Islas Filipinas, the Murillo Velarde 1734 map is indeed the “Mother of all Philippine Maps,” a “Living Document” to history, as Justice Carpio says.

Filipinos thank Justice Antonio Carpio for his unrelenting fight for Philippine territory and maritime sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).

We thank Former Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador Albert del Rosario, who had fought together with Justice Carpio for Philippine rights on the seas. Ambassador del Rosario, 83, passed away on April 18. May he rest in peace.

Between America and China…

I was anti-bases in the hey(Joe)days of Subic and Clark; there were no threats then to our waters and borders atbp.  Some 20 years later China has grown into a bully of a hegemon hereabouts, with a foreign policy of aggression and expansion, encroaching on and creating artificial islands in our waters, driving our fisherman away, refusing to abide by fair and civilized rules.

So I’m just glad that America is finally coming to the rescue, even if only incidentally, their larger concern being to keep democratic ally Taiwan from falling into the clutches of communist China.  I dare say, better the devil we know than the devil we don’t. At least we speak the same language as America, we know exactly (okay, more or less) what they’re up to, whether or not they do right by us. We cannot say the same of China, given the authoritarianism and censorship, the language barrier and (what Andrew Masigan) labels the “two-faced diplomacy.”

If China goes ahead as promised, despite America’s “deterrent” strategy, and war breaks out over Taiwan, yes, we would likely be in China’s crosshairs, but, hey, aren’t we there already anyway?

Readings

Out of our comfort zone and into the ‘gray zone’ by Moira G. Gallaga

The Aquino-Marcos one-two punch by Segundo Eclar Romero

Oaf by Alex Magno

Protecting PH sovereignty and territory by MG Gallaga

Expanded Edca: Benefit or liability?  by MG Gallaga

China’s two-faced diplomacy by Andrew J. Masigan

Playing with the big boys by MG Gallaga

The Sisa Prize 2023

VIRGINIA COULDN’T BE MORE WRONG.

Women writers have more on their plate than most other writers. There are familial roles to fulfill, community demands to meet, biological and mental stressors to deal with. Given the little that writing pays, and the limited options for writers in general, women are given no reason to drop everything and write.

Here, where we come from, a room of one’s own is not all that women need.

THE SISA PRIZE is a writing prize for Filipino women residing in the Philippines.

One that’s premised on the kind of madness it takes for women to create in the context of a present that burdens them uniquely and differently, with more than what should be bearable.

One that creates a space for (re)defining the contemporary Filipino woman writer — her sanities and hysterias, her kinds of power and her weaknesses, her becoming and refusals included.

One that we hope will ultimately make it worthwhile for more women to spend time writing, despite the fact that, and because, they are women.

Sisa Prize Categories for 2023

Submission Details

Terms and Conditions

March 8, 2023

Anwar & Ninoy

Na-excite ako when I heard that Anwar Ibrahim was coming for a two-day state visit. Knowing that he is a huge fan of Rizal and Ninoy, I wondered if he would dare speak Ninoy’s name in the same breath as Rizal’s, the way he did in 2011 in a U.P. lecture. Read “Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim: Honor Rizal, Ninoy” and Jose Rizal And Ninoy Aquino And Their Impact On ASEAN Leadership.

But of course he didn’t mention Ninoy, now is not a good time, obviously — why offend one’s host nga naman. In Butch Dalisay’s “A Homecoming for Anwar” the Prime Minister’s remarks upon accepting  an honorary U.P. Doctor of Laws degree resonate anyway.

DALISAY. Anwar argued strongly and eloquently for the restoration of justice, compassion, and moral righteousness to ASEAN’s hierarchy of concerns, beyond the usual economic and political considerations. He was particularly critical of ASEAN’s blind adherence to its longstanding policy of non-interference in its members’ internal affairs, noting that “ASEAN should not remain silent in the face of blatant human rights violations” and that “non-interference cannot be a license to disregard the rule of law.”

Extensively quoting Rizal, whom he had studied and lectured often about, Anwar urged his audience to free themselves from the self-doubt engendered by being colonized, while at the same time remaining vigilant against subjugation by their “homegrown masters.” I found myself applauding his speech at many turns, less out of politeness than a realization that I was in the presence of a real thinker and doer whose heart was in the right place. (And Anwar was not without wry humor, remarking that as a student leader visiting UP, “I was under surveillance by both Malaysian and Philippine intelligence. Now I have the Minister of Intelligence with me.”).

Anwar has always reminded me of Ninoy who was jailed for 7 years and 7 months (1972-1980) for being daw a communist but really because he was a threat to Marcos’s dynasty plans.  Anwar too was a popular oppositionist who was persecuted for his political views, with three prison sentences and 11 years in jail to his name for alleged corruption and sodomy just because he was a threat to Malaysia’s powers-that-be.

GUARDIAN. Anwar began his career in politics as Mahathir’s protege in the early 1980s – having already spent almost two years in jail for political protest – and quickly rose through the ranks to become deputy prime minister in 1993. His first downfall came in 1998, when he and Mahathir fell out over alleged cronyism and economic crisis, and Mahathir began to fear Anwar’s vast popularity. Anwar was ousted from office and then found himself charged with sodomy and corruption.

The resulting court case, the longest in Malaysian history, was an exercise in humiliation for Anwar, who was accused of sodomy with his speechwriter and wife’s chauffeur. “I cannot accept a man who is a sodomist to become the leader of this country,” said Mahathir at the time. Even though the evidence was flimsy and much of it coerced, Anwar was found guilty in 1999 of corruption and in 2000 of sodomy, landing him with a cumulative 15-year prison sentence.

He was allowed out in 2004, having spent six years in solitary confinement, and was allowed back into politics in 2008, when he ran as opposition leader in the election. But his reappearance on the political scene was not without ramifications. In 2010, he was put on trial again for sodomy, in hearings that went on for two years. He was acquitted, then ran again as opposition leader in the 2013 elections, gaining more of the votes, but still losing to Najib. But a year after Najib won the election, Anwar’s acquittal was overturned and he was sentenced to five years in jail for sodomy.  [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/16/malaysia-anwar-ibrahim-released-from-prison. “Malaysia: Anwar Ibrahim released from prison”]

But in 2016 Mahathir Mohamad did the unexpected.

The two men … buried the hatchet in 2016, when Dr. Mahathir unexpectedly showed up in court to support his imprisoned former deputy. It was their first friendly meeting since they parted ways nearly two decades before. Two years later, the alliance was formalized as they joined together to defeat scandal-tainted Prime Minister Najib Razak (2009-2018) in the May 2018 general election. [https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/malaysian-prime-minister/. “Malaysia’s political transition: Mahathir to Anwar 2.0”]

The week after elections, on 16 May 2018, Malaysia’s King, Sultan Muhammad V, officially pardoned and released Anwar after meeting with members of the pardons board and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

STRAITS TIMES. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said he would honour an agreement by the four partners of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) alliance to step down after two years and hand over the country’s leadership to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

“I am confident that he is now more mature and much experienced,” Tun Mahathir said at a gathering with Malaysians residing in Brunei at a hotel on Sunday evening (Sept 2). [https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/pm-mahathir-says-he-will-honour-agreement-to-hand-power-to-anwar-after-two-years “PM Mahathir says he will honour agreement to hand power to Anwar after two years”]

November 2022, ending five days of unprecedented post-election crisis after inconclusive polls, the King of Malaysia stepped up and appointed Anwar the new Prime Minister. Poetic justice.

IMAGINE

What if, ikinulong na lang uli ni Marcos si Ninoy? What if, like Mahathir Mohamad, who valued Anwar Ibrahim enough to keep him alive if in jail, eventually to himself pave the way for Anwar’s release and rise to Prime Minister, the 10th of Malaysia…. What if Marcos, too, had cared enough about nation and valued Ninoy enough to keep him alive if in jail, perhaps eventually to himself nobly step aside, make way for the return of democracy and Ninoy’s turn at the presidency (better late than never)?  Alas, Marcos was no Mahathir.