Spotlight: Manila's expenses for SCS arbitration should be made public

[ahojunk]

Now comes the fallout.

--------
Spotlight: Manila's expenses for South China Sea arbitration should be made public
Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-29 11:53:15 | Editor: huaxia

BEIJING, July 29 (Xinhua) -- The great expenses for the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government should be made public, as some Filipinos are already questioning the source of the money.

In 2013, the Benigno Aquino III administration unilaterally filed a case on the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China. An ad hoc arbitral tribunal set up at Manila's request issued a highly controversial and biased award on July 12, denying China's long-standing historic rights in the South China Sea.

Questions about how much money has been spent on the arbitration, paid by whom and to whom, have not only sparked hot debates in the Philippines, but also drawn attention worldwide.

It had cost Manila 30 million U.S. dollars to merely pay off legal fees and expenses of lawyers who prepared the case against China, Rigoberto Tiglao, former spokesperson and head of presidential office for former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, wrote in an article published in mid-July by the Manila Times.

This prompted a question, raised openly three days later by former senator Francisco S. Tatad, about the real cost of the arbitration. He suspected that the former Philippine government hid the truth from its nationals.

The government "never told the public how much the arbitration would cost the Filipino taxpayers. The Constitution provides that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, yet no appropriation has been disclosed for this particular purpose," he wrote to the Manila Times.

"How much then is it? Are any foreign donors involved?" he asked.

"The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency or its State Department should reimburse us," said Tiglao, suggesting that the arbitration case provides an excuse for the United States to interfere in the South China Sea.

Looking back, The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) charged the arbitral tribunal for the South China Sea case 2.85 million euros (3.16 million dollars ) for the secretarial service.

This was a sum all paid by Manila, including the share supposed to have been borne by Beijing, which had insisted on a stance of non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration.

This cost is supposed to cover human labor and rents for office and office equipment, as well as possible payments to the five members of the arbitral tribunal, said Wang Hanling, a Chinese maritime law expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

A gross sum of partial expenses can be traced on the basis of open data, Wang said. For instance, charges of secretarial service include openly-priced human labor, a single payment of 2,000 euros (2,218 dollars) for registration, and daily rent of office equipment at 1,750 euros (1,940 dollars), among other things, and the hearings room is charged at 1,000 euros (1,109 dollars) per day.

"Such estimations can lead to a conclusion that the arbitrators pocketed largely the money Manila paid," Wang wrote in an article published on July 28 in China's Global Times newspaper.

The PCA charges are the only part made public of the expenses of the arbitration case, Wang said.

Setting a rare precedent in the history of international justice and arbitration by sweepingly siding with Manila's claims, the arbitral award has been widely questioned and challenged in the world. What's worse, it indicates something fishy about the arbitrators, Wang said.

Wang believes that certain countries such as the United States and Japan, and some organizations, probably have invested a great deal of money and resources in the South China Sea arbitration case, citing the first payment by some U.S. institutions.

However, what Manila finally gained from the arbitration case is nothing but a scrap of paper, instead of benefits, he said.

In this regard, it is necessary for Manila to open the records of expenses for the arbitration, so as to respond to the questions raise by the Philippine people and address the concerns of the international community, Wang concluded.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

But also who actually selected the lawyers.

The history of the lawyers i.e. their previous clients.

The team from Manila handeling the file and their connections/sponsors.

Also of course who paid the bills.

Manila really made mess for itself to be used in such a way.

Will do such a thing again?

 

[ahojunk]

We already knew who is behind this farce.

--------
Political manipulation behind arbitral tribunal will be revealed
Source: Xinhua | 2016-07-27 02:43:51 | Editor: huaxia


VIENTIANE, July 27 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said here on Tuesday that the political manipulation behind the arbitral tribunal will be revealed, in response to the comments made by some foreign ministers on the South China Sea arbitration case.

Wang expounded on China's position when attending the 6th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers' Meeting held in the Lao capital Vientiane.

Wang said China has not participated in the arbitration case and will not accept the so-called ruling, a position that China has made clear since day one and is supported by strong legal basis.

By adopting this position, China is safeguarding the sanctity and impartiality of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), said the Chinese foreign minister.

First, the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government violated the principle of having the consent of concerned parties as the basis of arbitration and failed to meet the prerequisite of conducting full exchange of views beforehand, thus lacking the legal conditions to be initiated.

What the former Philippine government had done also abandoned bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines and violated Article 4 of the Declaration on Conducts of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) as well as the principle of estoppel prescribed in international law, according to Wang.

Second, he said, the subject matters of the arbitration, however packaged, in fact directly concern territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation which are beyond the scope of the UNCLOS and the jurisdiction of the ad hoc tribunal. It is a typical act of overstepping the power and ultra vires as well as the abuse of dispute arbitration mechanism.

Wang said by citing a prominent legal expert from Europe that the arbitration case undoubtedly touches upon territorial sovereignty which is not governed by the UNCLOS. The tribunal's practice of separating territorial sovereignty dispute with the status of islands and reefs is unseen in international law, which is like "putting the cart before the horse."

Third, the ruling of the ad hoc tribunal is full of obvious mistakes, Wang said. It blatantly uses its self-invented rules to negate and deprive the lawful and legitimate territorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interests of parties concerned. In particular, it says that Taiping Dao, the largest island in the Nansha Islands with an area of 500,000 square meters, is a rock and has no relevant maritime rights.

If such a judgment can legally stand, the sea map of the world will need to be redrawn, Wang said.

Wang stressed that this ruling runs counter to the spirit of international rule of law as well as the principle and spirit of the UNCLOS.

"This arbitration is imbued with question marks and fallacies in terms of procedure, legal application, fact finding and evidence gathering," he said.

The so-called ruling is illegal in three aspects: the initiation of the arbitration is illegal, the set-up of the tribunal is illegal, and the result of the arbitration is illegal. Therefore, China's stance is fully legitimate which serves the purpose of upholding international equity and justice and regional peace and stability, Wang said.

The Chinese foreign minister said more and more countries have come to see the nature and danger of the arbitration case, and understand and acknowledge China's stance to resolve disputes through direct negotiation and consultation, calling for respect to the rights of sovereign states to independently choose dispute settlement means including respecting the declaration on optional exceptions made under Article 298 of the UNCLOS.

There are also more and more legal experts around the world questioning the legality of the arbitration case and the fairness of the ruling, Wang said, noting that the illegal nature of the so-called South China Sea arbitration case and the political manipulation hidden behind the ad hoc arbitral tribunal will be further revealed.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

China must bring to light of day...how troublemakers cooked the entire mess systematically.

This will demonstrate to the ASEAN peoples how they are being used by the troublemakers.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

But also who actually selected the lawyers.

The history of the lawyers i.e. their previous clients.

The team from Manila handeling the file and their connections/sponsors.

Also of course who paid the bills.

Manila really made mess for itself to be used in such a way.

Will do such a thing again?

It could have been a footnote in foreign aid packages. It wouldn't have shown up in their budget. $200M in aid 2013 + trade concessions + misc ongoing lawyer fees

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

It could have been a footnote in foreign aid packages. It wouldn't have shown up in their budget. $200M in aid 2003 + trade concessions + misc ongoing lawyer fees

True. This how they keep their hands clean. No finger prints.

 

[ahojunk]

After lots of hoopla, it is still back to square one!
What a waste of USD 30 million, but the tribunal lawyers and judges are laughing all the way to the bank.

--------
The makings of a South China Sea agreement between Beijing and Manila

Mark Valencia says with both sides now displaying a willingness to engage, China and the Philippines have a chance to negotiate for mutual benefit

PUBLISHED : Friday, 29 July, 2016, 3:40pm
UPDATED : Friday, 29 July, 2016, 5:42pm

The lords of public international law have spoken. The July 12 award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration regarding the Philippine-China case upheld almost all of the Philippines’ complaints. The most significant aspects of the decision were the denial of China’s nine-dash-line claim to historic waters or rights within it and that none of the Spratly features are legal islands which can generate 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zones and continental shelves. That is what international law “says”. But acceptance and compliance are another matter.

Indeed, this is where international law and political reality diverge. The Philippines is hoping it can now go to the negotiating table with leverage gained from its legal victory. But China has declared that the decision is “null and void” and that it will not observe, implement, comply or even discuss it. So where can they go from here?

The dispute and its resolution will not only affect Philippine-China economic, political and security relations, but have implications for China’s relations with the whole region – and its political stability. Even the United States has called for both parties and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to explore ways to ease tensions. Indeed, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (王毅) asked him to throw his support behind bilateral talks between Manila and Beijing. This is good news. Kerry visited the Philippines days later and stated: “We hope to see a process that will narrow the geographic scope of the maritime disputes; set standards for behaviour in contested areas; [and] lead to mutually acceptable solutions – perhaps even a series of confidence-building steps”.

To improve relations with its neighbours, China needs to get beyond the decision. As the dust settles, China can take some satisfaction that it has demonstrated its control of some Spratly features and is thereby in a stronger position to negotiate such sovereignty issues. Further, no official in rival claim countries, including the Philippines, has yet suggested that it remove its personnel from the low-tide elevations it “reclaimed”. Moreover, the decision included no “cease and desist” order.

Nevertheless, China has lost face and it and the Philippines are locked in a dilemma. China has declared repeatedly that “no discussion of the decision” is a precondition to any negotiations with the Philippines. For China’s leadership, this will be difficult to back away from because nationalists at home are already aroused. Indeed, given other domestic problems, Xi is already skating on thin political ice.

New Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte also faces tough domestic obstacles. Even if he wants to change policy towards China, he is limited by the Philippines’ constitution as to how far he can go. As new Philippines Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay Jnr warns, “a joint development scheme might violate the constitution”. Moreover, if Duterte negotiates with China ignoring the arbitration decision, it may undermine the trust of its regional backers and the US, which supported the Philippines’ legal approach based on the principle of the rule of law.

It is true that the Philippine constitution mandates that the “state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens”. It also stipulates the state “may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens”. A president violating this provision commits an impeachable act.

This is not a theoretical concern. When former president Gloria Arroyo approved a joint seismic exploration undertaking with China and Vietnam in 2005 in areas that included the Philippines-claimed exclusive economic zone and even part of its territorial sea, she was accused of violating the constitution, surrendering sovereignty over Philippines resources, and corruption regarding supposed quid pro quos for doing so.

Auspiciously, it now appears that the Philippines will use the ruling as a guide but will not insist that China recognise it. According to Yasay, “that legal basis will now give way to the diplomatic processes”. Hopefully, China will not insist on a precondition that the Philippines recognise its sovereignty over any of the rocks. Assuming that these initial obstacles can be overcome or put aside, the way forward is replete with possible trade-offs.

First would be a tacit or even explicit agreement to leave the issue of sovereignty over the rocks, including Scarborough Shoal, for future generations to resolve. Next would be agreement to share fisheries access at the shoal and in the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea around it under a regime of “traditional fishing rights” for both. This would build trust.

Already, the Philippines has rejected the request of Philex Petroleum to lift the moratorium on exploration in its blocks in the South China Sea imposed by the government because of the dispute. As a reciprocal gesture of goodwill, China might reduce its activities on the low-tide elevation features and cease harassing Philippine fishermen and Philippines-sanctioned oil exploration activities in the Philippine exclusive economic zone – when and if they resume. It might also prevent its fishermen from damaging coral reefs and harvesting endangered species.

But to progress further and emulate the lawyers and judges who navigated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions on exclusions to arbitral jurisdiction, the two need to expand the negotiating arena. Important would be commitment from China to assist in the development of infrastructure in the Philippines. In return could be the sharing of petroleum resources in the Philippine exclusive economic zone. The Philippines cannot share 50/50 because of its constitution but it could give China preferential exploration, development and production rights and terms. And they could agree to manage the resources in the common heritage area created by the decision (that is, the area beyond legitimate exclusive economic zone claims from mainland baselines and territorial seas around the rocks) and invite other Southeast Asian nations to join them.

There are ways out of this conundrum, and hopefully, China and the Philippines will pursue them.

Mark J. Valencia is adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies

 

[dingyibvs]

Good article. There's nothing that can't be maneuvered around, where there's a will there's a way.

 

[Three_Kingdoms]

"China has lost face and it and the Philippines are locked in a dilemma. China has declared repeatedly that “no discussion of the decision” is a precondition to any negotiations with the Philippines. For China’s leadership, this will be difficult to back away from because nationalists at home are already aroused. Indeed, given other domestic problems, Xi is already skating on thin political ice."

Whose face that has lost? The biggest losers are:
First: the Filipinos who have gained nothing in substance out of the corrupt court's verdict still have to pay the substantial legal fees
First (co-face-losing champions): PCA-Hague proves its gross incompetence and unfairness
Second: the Japanese whose claim of an "island" status of a table-sized land reclamation known as Okinotori "Islands" (沖ノ鳥島) is again defeated by the verdict of the stupid court. the USA's spokesman also denied Okinotori an island
Third: USA betrays the trust of its puppet government in Taiwan, full credit to the stupid court's ruling that Taiping Island is a "reef"
Fourth: the Taiwanese government knows their most trusted friends, vis-a-viz Japan and USA have betrayed them
Fifth: the Indian drum-beaters have presented nothing more than their utter insignificance on the world stage of politics and power wrangling because none of their "allies" ever mentioned them, not even once in all of their "allies" statements

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

China must thank Manila for a great service it has done for China.

Manila got used to create noise by the trouble makers.

Manila paid 30 mln for nothing. Could have spent on its peoples.

ASEAN didnot fall for the trap and stayed away making usual meaningless statements.

JP game of bogging down China in SCS failed so now on to ECS.

The US pressure tactic did not work and now they 'support' peaceful dialouge.

No one in SCS is going to repeat an other Manila.

So in a way Chinese people must send thank you notes to Manila.

30 mln thank you notes will be fine. No need to overdo ourselves.

Back to development then.

 

[ahojunk]

China must thank Manila for a great service it has done for China.

Manila got used to create noise by the trouble makers.

Manila paid 30 mln for nothing. Could have spent on its peoples.

ASEAN didnot fall for the trap and stayed away making usual meaningless statements.

JP game of bogging down China in SCS failed so now on to ECS.

The US pressure tactic did not work and now they 'support' peaceful dialouge.

No one in SCS is going to repeat an other Manila.

So in a way Chinese people must send thank you notes to Manila.

30 mln thank you notes will be fine. No need to overdo ourselves.

Back to development then.

.
If Manila had not initiated the arbitration, China may not have reclaimed seven islands/reefs. They were still talking about DOC and COC.

Because of the arbitration, China felt it had to respond. And respond it did with 3 spanking new airfields and 5 lighthouses.
These assets are now operational and providing "public goods". lol.

Without the arbitration, China would have seven tiny outposts which are more of a liability than asset.

My prediction of China's response to the farcical arbitral decision is Scarborough Shoal after the G20 meeting in Hangzhou.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

.
If Manila had not initiated the arbitration, China may not have reclaimed seven islands/reefs. They were still talking about DOC and COC.

Because of the arbitration, China felt it had to respond. And respond it did with 3 spanking new airfields and 5 lighthouses.
These assets are now operational and providing "public goods". lol.

Without the arbitration, China today would have seven tiny outposts which are more of a liability than asset.

My prediction of China's response to the farcical arbitral decision is Scarborough Shoal after the G20 meeting in Hangzhou.

Give an inch loose a mile.

So, let us all thank you Manila for its cleverness.

 

[Three_Kingdoms]

Give an inch loose a mile.

So, let us all thank you Manila for its cleverness.

Yes we have to stand firm
Manila doesnt have the guts and resources to start the fiasco without the orchestration of America and the Japanese

 

[TaiShang]

The great expenses for the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally initiated by the former Philippine government should be made public, as some Filipinos are already questioning the source of the money.

I have had a chance to talk to a professor who has relationship with certain (retired) judges at the PCA. I was told that the Philippines received money from the US secretly. It is also said that the cost of the Arbitration was much higher than what has been put by the previous PH government.

The entire case already started to stink. I just hope some WikiLeaks style revelations.

Can we trust Russian and Chinese hackers on this?

Third: USA who betrays the trust of its puppet government in Taiwan, full credit to the stupid court's ruling that Taiping Island is a "reef"
Fourth: the Taiwanese government knows their most trusted friends, vis-a-viz Japan and USA have betrayed them

These are indeed two of the unseen positive fall-outs of the arbitration.

Taiwan now knows it cannot trust the US or Japan when it comes to its territorial sovereignty.

 

[ahojunk]

Philippines is used and abused by US and Japan.

--------
Most ASEAN countries 'want to stay out of Beijing's South China Sea dispute with the Philippines'
Liu Zhen and Catherine Wong, South China Morning Post
Jul. 28, 2016, 8:22 PM

Most Asean countries want to stay out of the South China Sea dispute between China and the Philippines, says a diplomat with inside knowledge about the negotiations that went on before the bloc issued a joint statement on the matter this week.

The Philippines had pushed to include this month’s international court ruling on the South China Sea in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ joint statement, the diplomat said, but the communique released on Monday left it out in the end.

No one but the Philippines insisted that the arbitral ruling be included, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

He said most countries in the bloc, especially those who had no claims in the South China Sea, wished to stay out of the dispute.

The Asean statement carried a section on the contested waters, expressing serious concern over land reclamations and “escalations of activities” in the region, but did not directly challenge China nor mention the ruling.

The bloc had, during a meeting in Laos, been deadlocked over the language of the initial statement and whether to mention the ruling handed down by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague on July 12. The court had ruled in the Philippines’ favour, declaring China’s claims to the contested South China Sea invalid.

“The arbitration was never intended to be included in the statement,” the diplomat said on the sidelines of the Laos meeting on Tuesday.

He added that the impression that China had emerged as the winner and Asean the loser after the statement’s release had caused pressure on the bloc.

“For some small countries, if they think Asean cannot be relied on, they will go to the big powers,” the diplomat said.

On Tuesday, Vice-President Li Yuanchao thanked Cambodia’s visiting National Assembly President Samdech Heng Samrin in Beijing for his country’s “impartial stance” and for “speaking out for justice on the South China Sea issue”.

Earlier reports said that according to Asean diplomats, Cambodia had spoken out in opposition to the inclusion of the ruling in the bloc’s statement.

In 2012, the Asean summit held in Cambodia for the first time failed to issue a joint statement because its members could not agree over the South China Sea disputes with China.

If anyone or anything had divided the Asean, it was the ruling itself, because it wiped out any possible grey areas in the disputes ... and made it impossible for the Asean to take a position in such a take-it-or-leave-it situation

In June, the Asean foreign ministers retracted a joint statement expressing concern over the South China Sea situation, after a special Asean-China foreign ministers’ meeting held in Yunnan province.

Philippines foreign minister Perfecto Yasay said that the issuance of the joint communique this time was a victory for Asean.

The bloc had initially been divided but eventually showed its united stance on the need to abide by international law and ensure peace, Yasay said.

“I am just saying this to dispel the reports that have been said that China came out victorious in the Asean meeting because we precisely agreed not to mention the arbitral award,” Yasay told a news conference on Wednesday.

He said the arbitration was a matter between China and the Philippines and that his country did not want to gloat over the win or rock the boat with Asean.

It is no surprise that the Asean omitted the arbitration ruling in their joint statement as the countries each hold very different opinions on the issue, analysts say.

Among the Asean’s 10 members, Cambodia and Laos have sided with China since 2012, while the Philippines and Vietnam have been pushing for a more hardline approach, said Oh Ei-sun, senior fellow at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. The remaining nations are somewhere in between.

“The Asean way is if there is no consensus among all members, the Asean will not make a statement on it,” he said.

There has been speculation that China, the United States or Japan have been trying to influence the smaller Asean nations and are dividing the 49-year-old bloc from the inside.

But Xue Li, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the Asean countries – just like the European Union – had the right to balance their own national interests and the unity of the regional group.

“The policy choices of the Asean countries on the South China Sea issue is fundamentally based on their own interest needs, not outside pressure,” Xue said.

Huang Jing, a professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said individual Asean countries were reluctant to back the one-sided ruling on the South China Sea as it would mean that they wholly supported the Philippines. Some of these countries were themselves also locked in maritime disputes with the Philippines, he said.

“If anyone or anything had divided the Asean, it was the ruling itself, because it wiped out any possible grey areas in the disputes, which are necessary for negotiation towards a compromise, and made it impossible for the Asean to take a position in such a take-it-or-leave-it situation,” Huang said.

A strong, powerful Asean would benefit regional peace and stability, which was also in China’s interest, said Xu Liping, an expert in Southeast Asian affairs from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Meanwhile, former Philippine president Fidel V. Ramos has accepted President Rodrigo Duterte’s offer to serve as a special envoy to restart talks with China.

Yasay said he hoped dialogue could be arranged, but did not say whether the Philippines would insist on discussing the arbitration ruling.

Read the original article on South China Morning Post. Copyright 2016.