The Baselines Bill that passed both Houses will be signed into law by President Arroyo this Thursday. This law defines the boundaries of the country, and includes part of the disputed group of islands known as the Spratlys. This group of islands is being claimed by no less than six countries - The Philippines, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia. Currently, Taiwan occupies the largest of the islands, and has built rigid structures and over 600 soldiers are quartered there. The Philippines on the other hand has control of over 83 hectares of islands and reefs. The rest have control of the remaining islands, reefs and cays. China has vehemently protested the signing of the bill into law, and continues to assert its claim on practically all of the islands, despite occupying only reefs at the moment. It is easy to see that the issue of the Spratlys claim will not be a walk in the park.
China has history on its side, claiming ownership of the islands simply because they were the first ones to land on the islands, owing to their very early civilization. But if you look at the map, it is nowhere near that of any Chinese mainland, including Taiwan. This has been the criticism for both their claims. The islands clearly are closer to the tip of Palawan, which forms the backbone of the country's claim on the islands.
The country first made its claim to several islands in 1946 at the United Nations, then in 1956, Tomas Cloma formally staked his claim on the group of islands and called them Kalayaan. All the other nations lodged official protests, and China and Taiwan started sending troops to occupy the largest island, and build rigid structures. To make such a long historical lecture short, the islands are in a state of dispute, as recognized by the United Nations. And with the baselines bill being enacted into law, a storm may be brewing on the horizon.
So why all the efforts to claim ownership of a group of islands, some of which even disappear during high tide? Apparently, it is not what's on the islands that's important, but rather what's below. It is believed that the island sit on top of large reserves of oil and natural gas. And even though current oil prices are dropping, it is still a vital commodity to any country. The signing into law is being seen by the other claimant countries as a sign of aggression, with China having the loudest voice. Nevertheless, the government has taken a defiant stand, and has made plans to invite Chinese officials to discuss the said law, in order for them to understand the context of it.
But China has never been known for their diplomacy and tact, but for their belligerence and arrogance. It is unlikely that it will give up its claim as a gesture of goodwill and diplomacy, but may very well rattle its saber towards us. Question is, do we even have a saber to rattle back? At a time when this administration seems critical of the United States due to the World Bank report on collusion and the Daniel Smith/Visiting Forces Agreement, we may not have that "backer" when the time comes.
This is a tricky one. In as much as I agree on asserting our claims to the islands, we may very well be in the middle of a storm. A storm that this administration is going to leave us with, by 2010.