The *Partido Lakas ng Masa *condemns any actions that increase military
tensions in the region and contribute to a regional military conflict, by
countries that lay claim to the Spratly Islands. We are opposed to any
sabre-rattling and stand for a negotiated, political settlement, of the
disputed claims to the area. Therefore we deplore China’s strong-arm tactics
and bullying, which undermines efforts towards a peaceful, political
settlement, of the disputed claims.

The Spratly Islands, less than four-square kilometres of land area spread
over 425,000 square kilometres of sea and usually submerged under water,
probably have strategic importance fuelling the numerous territorial
disputes. The area holds significant reserves of oil and natural gas:
reportedly some 17.7 billion tons of oil and natural gas reserves, larger
than the 13 billion tons held by Kuwait, thus making it the fourth largest
reserve bed in the world. In an energy hungry world, these reserves
intensify the disputed claims over the area. Due to clashes over claims on
the islands, no successful exploration of the area has as yet been
successfully undertaken. It is a productive area for world fishing and
accounted for 8% of the total world catch in 1988, a number which has most
likely risen since then. China has estimated that the South China Sea holds
one trillion dollars worth of oil, natural gas and fishing. The region is
also one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Tanker traffic through
the South China Sea is over three times greater than through the Suez Canal
and five times greater than through the Panama Canal.

The history of the various claims is lengthy and contorted. Malaysia has
militarily occupied three islands that it considers to be within its
continental shelf. Swallow Reef (*Layang Layang*) has been turned into an
island through land reclamation and the establishment of tourist facilities.
China and Taiwan claim that the islands have historically been a part of
China for nearly 2000 years, discovered during the Han Dynasty in 2 BC and
marked on maps compiled from thereon. China also claims that neighbouring
countries and European Powers took advantage of China’s situation during the
revolutionary upheavals to impinge on its sovereignty. Today, China’s
Peoples Liberation Army and the Taiwanese government armed forces are both
stationed in several islands, including the largest, Taiping Island. Vietnam
disputes China’s claims on the basis that the ancient Chinese records were
about non-Chinese foreign territories and that China did not claim
sovereignty over the Spratlys until after the Second World War. Vietnam
claims the Spratlys based on international law on declaring and exercising
sovereignty. Vietnam currently occupies 31 islands. Brunei’s claims to the
reef are based on the United Nations Law of the Sea. Brunei claims that the
southern part of the Spratly Chain is actually a part of its continental
shelf and therefore a part of its territory and resources.

The Philippines bases its claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the
issues of *Res nullius* (literally ‘nobody’s property’) and geography. The
claim was *Res nullius* as there was no effective sovereignty over the
islands until the 1930s when France and then Japan acquired the islands.
When Japan renounced their sovereignty over the islands, according to the San
Francisco Treaty between Japan and the Allied powers signed in 1951, there
was a relinquishment of the right to the islands without any special
beneficiary. Therefore, argue the Philippines, the islands became *Res
nullius* and available for annexation. The Philippines did not register
these claims until the 1970s and annexed the islands in 1978, calling them the
Kalayaan Island Group. The cornerstone of the Philippines claim of the
Kalayaan islands is that the Spratlys lie within its 200-mile Exclusive
Economic Zone according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea. The Philippines also argues, under maritime law that China cannot
extend its baseline claims to the Spratlys, because China is not an
archipelagic state.

There are many geopolitical interests at play in the area. These include
that of the United States, which has stated that it has ‘national interests’
in the South China Sea. The strategic importance of these islands, in a
world faced with rapidly dwindling natural resources and increasingly
precarious food security, are fuelling the disputes over territorial claims
in this region. In a region which has had more than its share of war and
conflict, due to colonial and imperialist aggression, we must reject all and
every response which escalates military tensions in the region. We must
stand for a negotiated, political resolution, to the disputed territories.

Furthermore, we do not believe the argument that the national sovereignty of
the countries involved is at stake over the disputed claims, helps achieve
this. The issue of national sovereignty is legitimate only if there are
national islanders, i.e. an actual islander population inhabiting these
islands, whose economic interests and culture historically coincide with the
interests of a nation state, but this is not the case. Only a small number
of military personnel occupy some of the islands. Sovereignty cannot be
solely defined as authority over territories. The Spratlys is simply a
disputed territory and therefore must be resolved through straightforward
negotiations. To argue, as the various governments do, that national
sovereignty is at stake or is being violated is not strictly accurate. It is
also dangerous as it raises the stakes and therefore increases regional
tensions around the issue.

We also oppose any attempts by the Philippine government and the defense
department to purchase military equipment ‘to better address the Spratlys
issue’, as described by AFP spokeman Commodore Rodriguez. In a country that
continues to face an armed liberation movement struggling for
self-determination of the Bangsamoro people in Mindanao, as well as a
guerrilla warfare undertaken by left groups in pursuit of social justice,
any ‘nationwide modernization upgrade’ as proposed by the AFP will
inevitably be used by the government against the legitimate struggle of the
Bangsamoro peoples and the left. Therefore, any moves by the AFP to purchase
weapons under the guise of ‘national defence’ must also be opposed.