Kulas Mata
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2017
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Now .. we know who are the winner and lossers ...
-------
'Game over' for PHL if China finishes building in Scarborough –Justice Carpio
Only the local mainstream media are keeping Carpio's warmongering alive on the national consciousness of the Philippines, together with Rep. Alejano, who's a former failed military mutineer himself during the time of former Pres. Arroyo (coincidentally her administration had a good rapport with China too). Both men are an avid critics of Duterte's current foreign policy towards China.
Anyways, this purported Aquino government victory handed by the PCA in the Neitherland over China was already totally debunked by no less than by a former Philippines diplomat, Adolfo Q. Paglinawan, former Press Attache of the Philippine Embassy in Washington DC, as nothing but cover-up of the Aquino monumental blunder in the SCS.
The Ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was “ill-founded” indeed!
This well crafted, scholarly criticism never quite took off in the circulation for obvious reason, in the Philippine mainstream media are now vilified as the yellow press of the Aquino's political party.
Here's some excerpt from the article:
"...China questioned why the case filing was done with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague, when any and all discussions will necessarily involve sovereignty issues. It has categorically asserted that the PCA cannot have any jurisdiction over matters of sovereignty.
It is not a body under the United Nations. It is a private arbitral venue. The nearest it is associated with the United Nations is that its facilities are housed in the same building as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, and it enjoys an observer status in the UN General Assembly.
Failing in the three foregoing essential elements of arbitration, and showing China’s incapacity to participate, the rest are therefore moot and academic.
1.4 They must agree to submit themselves to this third party’s decision.
1.5. They must agree to jointly implement such a decision, or award.
1.6 They must agree to defray all expenses incurred for the services of the arbitration, including the honoraria of the jurors.
In view of this, pray tell me, how can the PCA ruling be bona fide?
Anything that is not bona fide, is ipso facto, ill-founded.
Contradicting its very definition, how can an arbitration occur with only one party, the petitioner, involved?
Can any debate, from which a wise and legally binding ruling is to be based, occur with only one party involved?
Not only is it unilateral but a dangerous precedent to con China, or any country for that matter into a rule-based corner without due process, forced to compliance under lawless circumstances by an arbiter who made its decisions alone on the basis of what one party had submitted.
Not only does it present a dangerous precedent, but a monumental swindle. Isn’t this what China eventually asserted – that the arbitral ruling was a big gyp because when only the Philippines footed the bill of expenses, in effect the Philippines bought the award?
Worst of all, while the Philippines was busy “buying” an ill-founded arbitral decision by engaging in flawed procedures, China was equally busy altering the facts on the ground occupying, reclaiming and building structures on artificial islands.
Now, here comes the part where it is not palatable to Philppines yellow media:
The talking point is etched in the statements promuslgated by Albert del Rosario and his talking heads Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, multiple-losing congressional candidate Roilo Golez, Philippine Star columnists Jarius Bondoc and Alfredo Pascual, former solicitor-general Florin Hilbay, and the desks of The Philippines Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN and Rappler, and for sometime in the writings of Richard Heydarian and Jay Batongbacal in the academe.
Given all these facts, don’t they point to conclude that BS Aquino III proxied for the United States in building a case against China not just to shame China before the world but paint it as a rogue state? Didn’t the Philippines find itself validating his signature to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States?
These questions are relevant in evaluating how the BS Aquino administration, under the tutelage of Albert del Rosario, a suspected American cditizen, based its determination of our national interest in the posturing that he allowed in our relations with China, in active disconnection with any bilateral talks.
Didn’t the former president allow himself to be used, in preparation for the American pivot scheduled for completion in 2020 involving the rebalancing of its military presence to the Asia-Pacific?
The vehicle used in our previous posturing against China is a novelty in international relations. It is called lawfare, as distinguished from warfare, or its mild equivalent, low-intensity conflict.
This play becomes even more curious now that Ambassador Rigoberto Tiglao, now a Manila Times columnist, has claimed that the Aquino administration only proceeded with the filing of the PCA award to cover up the loss of Scarborough Shoal as a territory of the Philippines.
--------------------------------------------------
