“The ratification of UNCLOS exposed the many inequities in the Treaty of Paris particularly the boundaries agreed by the US in demarcating the archipelago’s boundaries in the South China Sea.”
Our continuing dispute with China in the South China Sea remains confusing as ever.
Issue lingers on to this day such that it has become an unresolvable issue that the succeeding BongBong Marcos presidency has lost track of what has become of it.
The issue will remain unresolved and possibly will continue because the Philippines, as principal claimant to the disputed waters of the so-called South China Sea, was the first to claim that body of water traversing from the North in the Sea of Japan passing through the Straits of Taiwan until it narrows down to pass the Strait of Molucca until it reaches the Indian Ocean.
Although the body of water stretches across several disputed islands from the Kurelis in the north of Japan in its claim of those territories taken by Russia to the island of Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands in the Sea of Japan, the dispute over certain islands stretches all the way to the South China Sea principally because the boundary that separates the Philippines east towards China and Vietnam is the only one that is demarcated by a document also known as the Treaty of Paris in 1898.
Among the countries that have territorial claims with China in the South China Sea, the Philippines is the only country that filed a case against China before the Permanent Arbitration Court, yet failed to present as reference point its claim or as evidence that it is holding on to a document indicating that allegedly certain areas belong to the Philippines.
Although it is not a signatory to the Treaty between the US and Spain signed on December 10, 1898 but as a successor-in-interest that has ripened to one of ownership after the country was granted independence in 1946.
Interestingly, the Treaty of Paris was not submitted by the Philippine panel when they filed the case against China when the document could have been used by us as our best evidence of ownership of that portion of the archipelago now being disputed by other countries.
Maybe we can speculate that behind our decision to file a case against China will appear that originally the US was a party to the Treaty.
Second, no matter what inequity was concluded in that treaty, the US was the original signatory and party to that treaty.
Any attempt to amend the boundaries is no longer possible as it was signed more than a century ago.
Third, that piece of treaty would expose that we have no basis for our claim against China.
Fourth, the US, in an attempt to come to the rescue of the Philippines, has no basis except for the military bases it signed with this country.
Article II of the Treaty of Paris signed by the US and Spain on December 10,1898 provides, and to quote a portion:
”Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: x x x which set specifically the boundaries thereof.
“The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.”
Many are truly puzzled why the Philippine panel did not submit to the Permanent Arbitration Court this most important document.
Effectively, our position to opt out of the voluntary arbitration procedure now appears to be justified.
China may have its own reason why it opted out of the voluntary arbitration for the Philippines could have been placed in an embarrassing position with China, or any country that may have claimed in the South China Sea would demand the presentation of the Treaty of Paris which indicated that we have no bases to our claim in the area.
The Treaty of Paris in 1898 may have served as evidence against our own interest but nonetheless they served as reference point to our claim in the South China Sea.
We cannot just keep on rejecting the claim of other states without us giving as reference point to our ownership that from this area, we could historically claim by the circumstances of a treaty, sale or by agreement, it is denominated as part of our territory as shown by the Treaty between the US and Spain which the US ceded jurisdiction of the archipelago by sale worth $20,000.000.00.
The Treaty of Paris in 1898 was subjected to revision in 1900 by the Treaty of Washington which opened a portion of the Sulu Seas to international navigation in what is now known as passage in the Strait of Sibutu.
And to quote:
“SOLE ARTICLE”
“Spain relinquishes to the United States all title and 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, 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 United States, in consideration of this relinquishment, will pay to Spain the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) within six months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.
“The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by Her Majesty the Queen Regent of Spain, after approval by the Cortes of the Kingdom, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.”
Many believe the opening of the Strait of Sibutu was at the behest of the British as they occupied and control north Borneo.
The ratification of the UNCLOS in 1984 was the most serious amendment to the Treaty of Paris for the fact that it needs the ratification of the members of the United Nations through a convention.
The ratification of UNCLOS exposed the many inequities in the Treaty of Paris particularly the boundaries agreed by the US in demarcating the archipelago’s boundaries in the South China Sea. (to be continued)
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)
