SASS AT TP DINAMAY NI DE LIMA SA US ENTRY BAN

We lost our islands with arbitration award

By Rigoberto D. Tiglao         December 30, 2019

Third of 4 parts

AS discussed in my last column, the arbitral tribunal declared only one feature occupied by China in the Spratlys, Mischief Reef, as within our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which the superpower cannot claim since as a “low-tide elevation,” or one which sinks to the sea at high tide, it cannot be appropriated by any country.

Even that victory is doubtful because China argues that it claims Mischief Reef not as a separate feature, but as part of its Nansha islands.

Whether China is right or not, that the tribunal declared Mischief Reef as within our EEZ is dwarfed in significance by what we lost as a result of the award, which prompted not a few scholars to conclude that the arbitration ruling was a pyrrhic victory for the Philippines. The term’s origins refer to King Pyrrhus of Epirus who lost so many of his troops in one victorious battle with the Romans. In this case, the Philippines lost so much in getting the tribunal to rule that Mischief Reef is ours.

The tribunal extended its ruling on the Chinese-occupied features to all of the Spratlys, including the features we claim or occupy. It declared: “None of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands, in their natural condition, are capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of their own within the meaning of Article 121(3) of the Convention; and that none of the high-tide features in the Spratly Islands generate entitlements to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

The tribunal reduced the status of all islands in the area as mere “rocks,” under the Unclos definition. It’s a huge loss for us since we have, after Taiwan’s Taiping island, the biggest feature in the Spratlys, Pag-Asa (37 hectares in size) and several relatively big islands such as Likas (19 has.) and Parola (13 has), which, as is the practice with most states, are without doubt considered as islands.

But the tribunal declared that these are only “rocks” in its much criticized interpretation of Unclos provisions, and therefore not entitled to a 200-nautical mile EEZ. The flaw of tribunal’s ruling indeed was starkly demonstrated when it declared that the biggest island in the Spratlys, Taiping–47 has. in size and controlled by Taiwan, which has a garrison with an airport that can accommodate even C-130 planes, and is energy self-sufficient because of its huge array of solar panels–is not an island.

We could have claimed in future negotiations for delimitation of EEZs with other countries, that Pag-Asa island as well as the other islands we occupy and claim are each entitled 200-nautical mile EEZs, each of which is an area of 430 sq km, four times bigger than the entire island of Luzon. This vast area may contain oil and gas wells that we would have the right to look for.

But the tribunal we asked to rule on our dispute with China declared that these are not islands but merely “rocks,” and therefore not entitled to EEZs. The Aquino government’s attempt to shoot down China’s claims of sovereignty in the Spratlys backfired in a huge way on the Philippines,

The tribunal’s ruling on what are not islands goes against the current definitions of many countries.

For example, Japan’s Okinotorishima isn’t eroding into the sea only because the Japanese built an embankment around it. Its 10 sq m of land area is 1/37,000 the size of our Pag-Asa island. Yet the Japanese claim it is an island which has a territorial sea and EEZ, which gives it a huge 156,000 sq km of EEZ. Japan rigorously patrols that EEZ, protesting every time any foreign ship not on an innocent passage enters it, such as vessels surveying for hydrocarbon deposits..

Not only Japan. Almost all the major powers have “rocks,” which they claim have EEZs. The US claims Howland Island, Baker Island and Kingman Reef have EEZs which gives it huge areas in the Pacific where it vigorously exercises its sovereign right. Australia has McDonald Island, and France, Clipperton Island.

It verges on treason that the Aquino government allowed its American lawyers to argue at great length that our Pag-Asa island is not an “island” by Unclos standards, and to disclose to the world details that should have been confidential as it involved matters of national security.

The lawyers’ written statements disclosed, using the island’s American nomenclature, “Thitu” instead of our Pag-Asa: “The local population on Thitu, transplanted there and maintained by the Philippine government since 2001, keeps a few animals and grows some vegetables, which is possible only because soil is continually brought from Palawan. The amount of food produced is not enough to sustain even this small community, and supplies are shipped from the mainland by a naval vessel once a month. The Philippines maintains military and civilian administrative personnel on Thitu, also supplied from outside.”

The lead counsel Paul Reichler of the Washington law firm Foley Hoag LLP in the oral arguments said, in effect announcing to the world that the Philippines was merely putting up a show to make Pag-asa look like an island:

“Everyone on Thitu has been transplanted from the Philippine mainland. Human habitation is not naturally sustainable there. Without regular supplies of essentials from Palawan or other major Philippine islands, it would disappear. The conditions are even harsher at much smaller West York Island, which is a sandy cay with more coconut trees than human beings. Only seven Philippine military personnel are stationed there. There are no civilians. All supplies are brought in from outside.”

Worse, Aquino-del Rosario through their lawyers lied to the tribunal, and misrepresented the Philippines when they claimed: “The Philippines…claims only a 12 [mile] territorial sea from it. The Philippines considers the feature a ‘rock’ governed by Article 121(3).”

The Philippines has not officially declared, after Unclos took effect in 1994, whether Pag-Asa island and the other islands in the Spratlys generate a 430 sq km EEZ. The Aquino-del Rosario suit has in effect deprived, forever as it were, our government — without consulting with Congress — the right to do so. The tribunal’s ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

The tragedy here is that it is only the Philippines that is bound by the arbitration suit, as China refused to participate in it. Only the Philippines will be losing the right to claim EEZs around its islands in the KIG. Taiwan, whose Taiping island was also ruled as a mere “rock,” will definitely obviously ignore the arbitration’s ruling since it is not a part of it. Vietnam which has the biggest number of islands, next to us, will ignore it.

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/debunked

https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/12/30/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/we-lost-our-islands-with-arbitration-award/668621/

John 1:1-18 | Bible Moralisée | The Word was made flesh, and lived among us

John 1:1-18   The Word was made flesh, and lived among us

God as architect of the world, folio I verso, Bible Moralisée, Paris, Executed between 1220-1230, Ink, tempera, and gold leaf on vellum © Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower. A man came, sent by God. His name was John. He came as a witness, as a witness to speak for the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He was not the light, only a witness to speak for the light. The Word was the true light that enlightens all men; and he was coming into the world. He was in the world that had its being through him, and the world did not know him. He came to his own domain and his own people did not accept him. But to all who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to all who believe in the name of him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself. The Word was made flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. John appears as his witness. He proclaims: ‘This is the one of whom I said: He who comes after me ranks before me because he existed before me.’ Indeed, from his fullness we have, all of us, received – yes, grace in return for grace, since, though the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.   READ MORE     Reflection on the Gothic Illuminated Manuscript  The Gospel of today, which is the very beginning of the Gospel of John, starts with three words: ‘in the beginning’. The whole bible starts with the same three words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). John is therefore firmly rooting his own writings in the Old Testament, emphasising that all beginnings trace back to God the Creator. But then John immediately moves towards positioning Jesus: ‘In the beginning was the Word’. The noun for ‘Word’ in Greek is logos (Λόγος). The meaning of this noun is very wide-ranging from meaning ‘statement’, ‘assertion’, ‘message’ or a even ‘declaration’. However John gives a new, unique meaning to the word ‘logos’. He means that the logos is the independent personified expression of God the Creator. A lot has been written about John's use of logos here, and we are studying some of this here in seminary, but what it boils down to is that John is saying that Jesus bursting into our world, is the very expression of God Himself. Furthermore, Jesus IS God himself. John knew what he was doing when making such a bold statement indeed to begin his Gospel. Jesus is fully human and fully divine! The image we are looking at is from a 13th century Gothic manuscript, the Bible Moralisée. These hand written and illustrated (illuminated) bibles are amongst the most important manuscripts. Our image is taken from such a medieval picture bible, called in general ‘biblia pauperum’. These ‘bibles for the poor’ (for people who couldn’t write or read) are heavily illustrated, and at the time, extremely expensive documents to produce. Our image of today, sits next to today’s Gospel reading, showing how God created the world. Science, and particularly geometry and astronomy/astrology, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars at the time. Refreshing to see that science then was considered as being fully part of the act of God’s creation; and not as is often the case today, science considered being opposed to religion. Medieval scholars considered that God had created the universe after geometric and harmonic principles. To seek these principles was therefore to seek and worship God! by Patrick van der Vorst

Luke 2:36-40 | Arent de Gelder | There was a prophetess, Anna

Luke 2:36-40   There was a prophetess, Anna

Simeon and Anna Praise the infant Jesus,  Painted by Arent de Gelder (1645–1727), Painted circa 1700, Oil on canvas © Mauritshuis, The Hague, Netherlands There was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was well on in years. Her days of girlhood over, she had been married for seven years before becoming a widow. She was now eighty-four years old and never left the Temple, serving God night and day with fasting and prayer. She came by just at that moment and began to praise God; and she spoke of the child to all who looked forward to the deliverance of Jerusalem. When they had done everything the Law of the Lord required, they went back to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. Meanwhile the child grew to maturity, and he was filled with wisdom; and God’s favour was with him.   READ MORE     Reflection on the Painting Today’s Gospel reading of Luke says that ‘in meanwhile the child grew to maturity, and He was filled with wisdom’… This sentence summarises 90% of the life of Jesus! Jesus spent thirty, of his thirty three years on earth, living an ordinary life in Nazareth. He was doing things probably most young men of his age were doing: working, playing, socialising, praying etc… These ‘hidden years’ were crucial for Jesus’ ministry, as it is in those years that His mission matured and that He prepared for the day He would really start actively spreading the Word of God. Those thirty years Jesus spent with His parents in Nazareth, reveal to us the value of our ordinary day-to-day lives. But it is Anna, the prophet, who has the final word in the nativity story which Luke shared with us. She highlights the importance of the birth of Jesus Christ, who would change the world forever. She has a burning need to tell others about the life transforming salvation offered through Christ. She is a prophet, and she can see what is coming, whilst holding Jesus in her arms. The tenderness of her embrace, embracing Salvation… Our painting shows Simeon and Anna. The Holy Spirit told the devout Simeon that he would not die before seeing the Messiah. When Mary and Joseph bring their child to the temple, the Holy Spirit had led Simeon there as well. Upon seeing the child, Simeon recognised immediately the Redeeemer in Him. Anna, the prophet, practically lived in the temple and she is seen here joining Simeon in praise of the infant. The painter, Arendt de Gelder was a pupil of Rembrandt, and his influence is clearly visible. by Patrick van der Vorst

If You're Ever Going to Love Me

by Anonymous

If you're ever going to love me love me now, while I can know

All the sweet and tender feelings which from real affection flow.

Love me now, while I am living; do not wait till I am gone

And then chisel it in marble — warm love words on ice-cold stone.

If you've dear, sweet thoughts about me, why not whisper them to me?

Don't you know 'twould make me happy and as glad as glad could be?

If you wait till I am sleeping, ne'er to waken here again,

There'll be walls of earth between us and I couldn't hear you then.

If you knew someone was thirsting for a drop of water sweet

Would you be so slow to bring it? Would you step with laggard feet?

There are tender hearts all round us who are thirsting for our love;

Why withhold from them what nature makes them crave all else above?

I won't need your kind caresses when the grass grows o'er my face;

I won't crave your love or kisses in my last low resting place.

So, then, if you love me any, if it's but a little bit,

Let me know it now while living; I can own and treasure it.

Matthew 2:13-15,19-23 | Luc Olivier Merson | The flight into Egypt

Matthew 2:13-15,19-23 The flight into Egypt

Rest on the Flight into Egypt,  Painted by Luc Olivier Merson (1846-1920) Painted in 1879, Oil on canvas © Museum of Fine Arts, Boston After the wise men had left, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away with him.’ So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: I called my son out of Egypt. After Herod’s death, the angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother with you and go back to the land of Israel, for those who wanted to kill the child are dead.’ So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, went back to the land of Israel. But when he learnt that Archelaus had succeeded his father Herod as ruler of Judaea he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he left for the region of Galilee. There he settled in a town called Nazareth. In this way the words spoken through the prophets were to be fulfilled: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’ READ MORE Reflection on the Painting Today’s painting is really stunning in my view and one of my favourite works. We see Joseph resting, exhausted on the Egyptian sands at the feet of the sphinx. He is flanked by a an open fire and the little donkey which carried them there. The saddle has been removed, to give the animal a rest too and we see him grazing on sparse desert grass. Mary and Jesus are resting on the sphinx, with a radiant light emanating from the child Jesus. He is staring at the stars in heaven. They were fleeing from the horror of the slaughter of the innocents which we discussed yesterday. Especially Mary’s heart-breaking, sorrowful expression is powerful. She grieves for all the women and children who could not flee, for the innocents slaughtered by the cruel king. All those lost baby lives, those grieving families. Surely Mary’s heart must have grieved for them too, she who bears the weight of all the sorrows of the world. Luc Olivier Merson, the French academic 19th century painter of this picture, beautifully captures quite a crucial moment in our faith: the Holy Family have just left behind the synagogues and the Temple, the Promised Land, to live in exile, trusting that some day God will deliver them and bring them back home. They are now surrounded by a pagan idol in the form of a sphinx. Mary carries with her the Light of the World but His time is not yet come to do His work. This is the moment where Mary and Joseph keep the light of faith alive in the land of Egypt! by Patrick van der Vorst

Matthew 2:13-18 | Peter Paul Rubens | The Massacre of the Innocents

Matthew 2:13-18   The Massacre of the Innocents

The Massacre of the Innocents,  Painted by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Painted in 1612, Oil on canvas © Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto After the wise men had left, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away with him.’ So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: I called my son out of Egypt. Herod was furious when he realised that he had been outwitted by the wise men, and in Bethlehem and its surrounding district he had all the male children killed who were two years old or under, reckoning by the date he had been careful to ask the wise men. It was then that the words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah were fulfilled: A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loudly lamenting: it was Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted because they were no more.   READ MORE     Reflection on the Painting During my time at Sotheby’s in London, I remember this painting being sold in 2002 for £49 million, which at the time was a record for any old Master painting sold at auction. A year before, my colleague had travelled to Stift Reichersberg, a monastery in northern Austria where he saw this painting for the first time. Almost instantly he was persuaded that it was indeed a painting by Rubens. Months of intense research and academic work followed, ending up with a firm attribution to Rubens. Then came the auction evening. Lights on, public and cameras present, frantic bidding ensued, till the hammer came down. Sold! The painting was bought by Canadian businessman and art collector Kenneth Thomson. He donated the work to Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, where this work can now be admired by the public. In typical Rubens’ fashion, it is a highly dramatic, theatrical and vivid depiction of our Gospel passage of today. Look at the skin tonalities of the living babies and those who have been killed… A difficult painting to look at. Matthew is the only Gospel writer to share the story of the Massacre with us. He deemed it important to tell us that this terrible massacre in Bethlehem is a foretaste of what we will see with Jesus on Calvary. We could even say that this massacre was one of the first clashes between politics and Christianity… The reading isn’t easy, but it is exactly here that art can ad that extra dimension when reading the gospels. Through these vivid paintings, the gospel readings become very real and tangible. Especially Rubens so explicitly depicting what happened, makes it a heart-breaking episode to reflect on. Innocent children being killed by an unjust ruler wreaking havoc. Our sense of pain for them today, can stir us now to help the suffering children of our world. I am sure in some parts of the world, images could be generated by camera which wouldn’t be too dissimilar to our painting: starving children, homeless children, orphaned children of war, etc… The ‘Holy Innocents' of 2,000 years ago and the innocent children of today… by Patrick van der Vorst

Sovereignty claims, not maritime entitlements

By Rigoberto D. Tiglao         December 27, 2019

Second of 4 parts

AT the core of the arbitral tribunal’s errors in its ruling was its refusal to recognize that the dispute between China and the Philippines involved sovereign claims over territory. The Philippines’ lawyers though deviously tried to package the suit as involving which country has the right maritime entitlements such as exclusive economic zones (EEZ) if such exist in the South China Sea (SCS) under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

They did so because they knew full well that neither the tribunal nor any international panel nor the Unclos has the authority to rule on territorial disputes between nations.

“The tribunal should have got below the surface of the Philippines’ claims, but it did not,” Chris Womersley, an international law expert who has been an adviser to the British government on territorial issues pointed out. (In “The South China Sea: The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines Against China — A Critique.”)

Similarly, Oxford University professor on public international law Antonios Tzanakopoulos pointed out: “The dispute between the Philippines and China is obviously over sovereignty over… features in the SCS, and only relatedly over maritime zones and the entitlements that the relevant features generate.”

Tzanakopoulos explained: “Questions of sovereignty over land [and insular] territory do not fall within the scope of the Unclos, and could thus never constitute disputes ‘concerning the interpretation or application’ of the Convention… The Philippines was of course acutely aware of this, and so was at pains to ‘package’ the dispute as one concerning the interpretation of Article 121 of the Convention on the regime of islands.”

“The tribunal failed to recognize that the fundamental dispute is about the sovereignty over the features in the South China Sea, and that the status of the features, such as whether they are low-tide elevations or ‘rocks,’ is a question which can only logically be answered once the sovereignty dispute has been resolved,” the professor pointed out.

The Republicans’ legal strategy for getting the tribunal to rule that China had no legal basis in its occupation of eight reefs in the Spratlys and of Scarborough was to have it rule on the maritime entitlements of these features according to Unclos provisions.

The tribunal declared that four out of the eight features occupied by China in the Spratlys are “low-tide elevations,” or features, which are out of the water only at low tide.

These, under Unclos, therefore “do not generate entitlements to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf and are not features that are capable of appropriation.” These are Subi Reef, Gaven Reef (South), Hughes Reef and Mischief Reef. If these are not capable of appropriation, the implication is that China cannot claim them.

The tribunal, however, pointed out that Subi Reef, Gaven Reef (South) and Hughes Reef lie within 12 nautical miles of the high-tide feature of Sandy Cay (Son Ca for the Vietnamese), Namyit Island; and Sin Cowe Island, respectively. The tribunal therefore withheld judgment on whether the Philippine EEZ covers these three features, since they are within the 12-mile territorial sea of the three islands, which are claimed and occupied by Vietnam who is not a party to the arbitration suit.

As a result, the tribunal could declare only the Chinese-occupied Mischief Reef as within the EEZ, and that China has no right to it under Unclos. (It also declared Second Thomas Shoal, which we call Ayungin as such, but this feature has been controlled by the Philippines since 1999 when it grounded a World War 2 vintage ship to serve as outpost for a dozen Navy men.)

As to the remaining five Chinese-occupied features in the Spratlys — Gaven Reef (North), McKennan Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef — as well as Scarborough Shoal, the tribunal declared that while these are high-tide elevations, or out of the water even during high tide, these are classified as “rocks” under Unclos provision 121(3), which do not generate an economic zone or continental shelf.

Strangely though, the tribunal did not rule that these Chinese-occupied features are within the Philippines EEZ, and therefore was silent on the Philippines’ — and the US’ — protest that China built huge artificial islands with installations on reefs, that could be converted into military facilities.

The tribunal merely ruled that based on its finding land reclamation and construction of artificial islands, installations and structure resulted in severe, irreparable harm to the coral reef ecosystem in those areas.

But in its 748-page rebuttal of the tribunal’s award issued in December 2017, the Chinese Society of International Law claimed that its conclusion on environmental damage was based on faulty data. It pointed that the “research” was done within only 17 days and was not based on an actual investigation of the reefs China had built installations on but on other geographical sites such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Port of Miami. The research was also based on satellite images posed at the website of an American think-tank.

The Philippine victory therefore involved only Mischief Reef, which the tribunal claimed as within its EEZ, and which China cannot claim sovereignty over since it is a low-tide elevation “incapable of appropriation.”

But Mischief Reef and the other seven features China occupies in the Spratlys were determined only as located within the Philippines’ EEZ only in March 2009, through Republic Act 9022, called the “Baselines Law,” passed in March 2009.

China’s claim on these low-tide elevations and rocks is based not on claims for each feature but its claim declared even before World War 2 — and even before the modern era — and that the entire Spratlys as a unit, an archipelago that includes all the features there, is part of its sovereign territory it calls Nansha Qúndǎo, administratively under its Hunan province since 1958.

The reefs were all occupied by China in 1988 and then, in the case of Mischief Reef, in 1995 — many years before the Philippines claimed in 2009 that these were within its EEZ.

The Chinese though are to blame for many people’s failure to understand that China claims Nansha as a unit, or as, to use the Unclos term, a regime of islands. This is because Nansha Qúndǎo isn’t drawn in their maps as a clearly defined area but shown in Chinese maps as islands and reefs with Chinese names which with its adjacent waters are, in particular, shaded to mark its extent. China did announce the boundaries of Xisha, or the Paracel Islands, but only in 1996 when it defined the archipelago’s baselines. China in that year also announced it would soon declare the baselines around its Qúndǎo but so far hasn’t done so.

Even as it stated in several parts of the ruling that it cannot rule on issues of sovereignty, the tribunal nevertheless did so, and denied China’s sovereignty over those four low-tide elevations in the Spratlys, disguising such rule by using the words “not capable of appropriation.”

Womersley emphasized: “It is noteworthy that there seems to be no precedent for an international tribunal to consider the status of a feature when the territorial sovereignty over that feature is disputed, indeed hotly contested. During the hearing, [tribunal] Judge Pawlak asked the Philippines’ legal team whether they could quote any precedent ‘when entitlements to maritime features were decided separately from sovereignty over them.’ The Philippines’ team promised to revert on this point, but there is no sign in the award that they were able to discover a precedent.”

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/debunked

https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/12/27/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/sovereignty-claims-not-maritime-entitlements/667947/

John 20:2-8 | James Tissot | John ran faster than Peter to the Tomb

John 20:2-8 John ran faster than Peter to the Tomb

Saint Peter and Saint John Run to the Sepulchre,  Drawn by James Tissot (1836-1902), Drawn between 1886 and 1894, Gouache and graphite on paper © Brooklyn Museum, New York On the first day of the week Mary of Magdala came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved. ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb’ she said ‘and we don’t know where they have put him.’ So Peter set out with the other disciple to go to the tomb. They ran together, but the other disciple, running faster than Peter, reached the tomb first; he bent down and saw the linen cloths lying on the ground, but did not go in. Simon Peter who was following now came up, went right into the tomb, saw the linen cloths on the ground, and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in; he saw and he believed. READ MORE Reflection on the Gouache on Paper Only two days ago we celebrated the birth of Jesus. Yesterday we looked at the martyrdom of Saint Stephen. Today we are at the tomb of Christ. Life is short! So between birth and death we better make something of our lives… But let us look more closely at the sentence St John writes in today’s Gospel ‘They ran together, but the other disciple, running faster than Peter, reached the tomb first’. In the first instance, it may seem like a trivial bit of information we get told. Why is all of this so important for John to tell us that he ran faster than Peter? John is telling us that his faith was stronger than Peter’s by running faster, more focussed, more driven. But John knew deep down that he wouldn’t find Christ at the tomb anymore. He did not even have to enter the tomb to know this. He stayed outside as his faith told him that Christ had risen from the dead.  Peter on the other hand did have to enter the tomb to see with his own eyes that Christ wasn’t there anymore. But, it is on Peter that Christ built his Church. He might at the time not have been the man holding the most faith compared to the other disciples, but nevertheless Christ handed the keys of the Church to him.  This image by James Tissot, shows John ahead of Peter, running to the tomb. John has a sense of urgency about him. He was running towards The Lord, just as we are invited to run towards Him, especially in these days of Christmas. Run towards His light… where Christ is waiting to meet us… by Patrick van der Vorst

Matthew 10:17-22 | Annibale Carracci | Saint Stephen's Day

Matthew 10:17-22 Saint Stephen's Day

The Martyrdom of Saint Stephen,  Painted by Annibale Carracci (1560-1609), Painted between 1603 and 1604, Oil on copper © Louvre Museum, Paris Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Beware of men: they will hand you over to sanhedrins and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the pagans. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to speak or what to say; what you are to say will be given to you when the time comes; because it is not you who will be speaking; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you. ‘Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved.’ READ MORE Reflection on the Painting  Today we celebrate St Stephen, the first Christian martyr. According to the Acts of the Apostles, he was a deacon in the early Church in Jerusalem. With his teachings he made quite a few enemies in the synagogues. Accused of blasphemy, at his trial, he made a long speech denouncing the Jewish authorities who were sitting in judgment on him and he was then stoned to death. His martyrdom was witnessed by Saul of Tarsus, commonly known as Saint Paul. In our painting by Annibale Carracci, we see Saint Stephen saying his final words, outside the walls of the city. The martyr is already on his knees and bleeding. He pays no attention to the men who are about to stone him, but he already graciously looks up to the angel who is floating towards him bearing the crown and palm, symbols of the martyr. The angel is a celestial messenger sent from the from golden realms of heaven which we can see in the top right corner, which reveal a glimpse of God and Christ looking upon the whole scene… and to witness his martyrdom.  It may seem strange that we celebrate the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the day after Christmas, when we are still immersed in the joys of celebrating the birth of Christ, yesterday. But that is exactly what our faith is. It is not an emotion, but it is a deep peace and love for Christ which is still there in the midst of trials tribulations and in the face of death. It reminds us that this is exactly why Christ came on earth yesterday… to save us from our sins by dying for us on the cross… by Patrick van der Vorst

Arbitral PH vs China: A colossal deception

By Rigoberto D. Tiglao       December 25, 2019

First of 4 parts

IT is a colossal deception that the Philippines in 2016 won the arbitration suit against China involving our disputes in the South China Sea and that the country should pursue the “enforcement” of the arbitral tribunal’s “award.”

If it was a victory at all, it was a pyrrhic one, not a few international law scholars have concluded, That means that the damage to Philippine interests, and to the integrity of arbitration based on the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (Unclos), made it tantamount to defeat.

(Salako, S. E. in “Entitlement to Islands, Rocks and Low-tide Elevations in the South China Sea: Geoeconomics versus Rule of Law” and Nordquist, Myron, “Unclos Article 121 and Itu Aba in the South China Sea Final Award: A Correct Interpretation”)

President Benigno Aquino 3rd and his foreign secretary Albert del Rosario told the country when it filed the suit in January 2013 that it would recover Scarborough Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc), which Aquino and del Rosario lost to China in June 2012 because of their bungling of the two-month-long stand-off between Philippine and Chinese vessels in the area, as extensively discussed in previous columns. Aquino’s plea for the US to intervene for us to get back Bajo de Masinloc, through American warships escorting our ships back into its lagoon, was also rejected by President Obama.

Del Rosario also claimed that the arbitration would resolve the country’s other disputes with the Chinese in the Spratlys area, specifically its occupation of seven reefs it claims China has no sovereignty nor sovereign rights over, but are within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). “The Philippine choice of arbitration under Unclos is the last resort for a peaceful resolution of disputes in the West Philippine Sea after exhaustion of political and diplomatic approaches,” he said in his press statement.

But the Philippines failed to recover Scarborough through that arbitration suit. The tribunal ruled that it had no jurisdiction on this Philippine claim and that it was not an issue of maritime entitlements under Unclos, but of sovereignty over an island. The tribunal merely admonished China that it must allow Filipino fishermen, as well as those from other nationalities, to “engage in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.”

The arbitration tribunal did not rule that Bajo de Masinloc was part of Philippine territory, nor that the Chinese occupation of it was illegal under the Unclos or any international law. The tribunal merely ruled:

“Scarborough Shoal has been a traditional fishing ground for fishermen of many nationalities and declares that China has, through the operation of its official vessels at Scarborough Shoal from May 2012 onwards, unlawfully prevented fishermen from the Philippines from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal.”(page 475 of arbitral tribunal’s award, July 2016)

However, the tribunal emphasized that it was not in any way deciding, nor could it decide on which country has sovereignty over Bajo de Masinloc. It had no jurisdiction on the Philippine demand since it was not an issue of maritime entitlements under Unclos — that is, exclusive rights over an area in the sea that extends from a land territory such as the EEZ — but of sovereignty over an area. This was not within the authority of Unclos.

In the very first pages of the “award,” the tribunal pointed out:

“The Convention, however, does not address the sovereignty of States over land territory. Accordingly, this Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal. None of the Tribunal’s decisions in this Award are dependent on a finding of sovereignty, nor should anything in this Award be understood to imply a view with respect to questions of land sovereignty.” (pages 1 and 2 of the Award)

The tribunal indeed repeated this important point several times in its award:

— “The question of sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal will remain entirely unaffected by the Tribunal’s determination.” (page 176)

— “The Tribunal records that this decision is entirely without prejudice to the question of sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal.” (page 318)

— “The Tribunal has not addressed — and will not address — the question of which State has sovereignty over Sandy Cay, Thitu, or Scarborough Shoal and would thus have an entitlement to the surrounding territorial sea.” (page 296)

The tribunal’s decision on Bajo de Masinloc even indirectly strengthened China’s occupation of the shoal: China could now argue that even the ruling on the Philippine suit against China had not declared its occupation of the shoal illegal or violative of international law, even if the Philippines also claims that it is.

The tribunal merely admonished China that since it was traditional fishing grounds, it must allow Filipino fishermen and those from other countries to fish there. But that has been what China claims it was doing until the Philippines arrested its fishermen there in April 2012 and even sent a warship there to assist such an operation by is Coast Guard.

A November 2014 report of the Center for Naval Analyses — a private think tank for the US military — in November 2014, that is, two years before the tribunal handed down it ruling, pointed out:

“From its perspective, China resolved the sovereignty dispute with the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal in 2012 when it established control over the shoal. Again, it is unlikely to relinquish it. The government of the Philippines is in no position to even begin to contemplate the use of force to recover Scarborough, and the United States is not going to become involved in any attempt to expel the Chinese.”

The tribunal’s ruling in effect totally closed down arbitration, or any suit brought in an international court, as venues for the Philippines to recover it by means other than force.

Sovereignty claims

The tribunal in its decision even mentioned China’s modern sovereignty claims over Bajo de Masinloc as well over the Spratlys:

“China claims sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which in China is known as ‘Huangyan Dao’ and treated as part of the Zhongsha Islands. In China’s 1958 Declaration of the Government of the People’s Republic of China on China’s Territorial Sea, China declared a twelve mile nautical sea from “all territories . . . including . . . the Zhongsha Islands.” China’s 1992 Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone also included the Zhongsha Islands in China’s territorial land which generated a 12-nautical- mile territorial sea.” (pages 199 to 200)

The tribunal added:

“On 27 November 2012, the Standing Committee of Hainan Provincial People’s Congress revised “The Hainan Provincial Regulation on the Control of Coastal Border Security” (“the Hainan Regulation 697”). As an administrative matter, China considers the Spratly and Paracel Islands, as well as Scarborough Shoal to form part of Hainan Province, since 2012 as part of the city of Sansha.” (page 271)

What many scholars found strange in the award was that while it purported to be aware of the Chinese claims of sovereignty, it facetiously dismissed these as irrelevant to the Philippine suit. “There is, indeed, much interesting evidence—from all sides—that could be considered by a tribunal empowered to address the question of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal. This Tribunal, however, is not empowered to address that question,” the tribunal merely said. (page 112)

Nevertheless, in the other rulings made by the tribunal, it actually — without saying so — ruled on the sovereignty issue even if it had no authority to do so, as many international law scholars have pointed out.

“The dispute between the Philippines and China is obviously over sovereignty over maritime features in the SCS, and only relatedly over maritime zones and the entitlements that the relevant features generate,” an Oxford University professor on public international law Antonios Tzanakopoulos pointed out. (In “Resolving Disputes over the South China Sea under the Compulsory Dispute Settlement System of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”)

Similarly, Chris Womersley, an international law expert who has been an adviser to the British government on territorial issues pointed out: “The tribunal failed to recognize that the fundamental dispute is about the sovereignty over the features in the South China Sea, and that the status of the features, such as whether they are low-tide elevations or ‘rocks,’ is a question which can only logically be answered once the sovereignty dispute has been resolved.” (In “The South China Sea: The Award of the Tribunal in the Case Brought by Philippines against China — A Critique”)

That it ruled against China’s sovereignty claims in its award and recognized Philippine EEZ entitlements is the huge flaw in the tribunal’s decision.

Part 2 on Friday: 

“PH shot itself in the foot”

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

Twitter: @bobitiglao

Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/debunked

https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/12/25/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/arbitral-ph-vs-china-a-colossal-deception/667153/

John 1:1-18 | Sandro Botticelli | A very merry Christmas to you all.

John 1:1-18   The Word was made flesh, and lived among us

The Mystical Nativity,  Painted by Sandro Botticelli (1445-1510), Painted circa 1500, Oil on canvas, © National Gallery, London In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower. A man came, sent by God. His name was John. He came as a witness, as a witness to speak for the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He was not the light, only a witness to speak for the light. The Word was the true light that enlightens all men; and he was coming into the world. He was in the world that had its being through him, and the world did not know him. He came to his own domain and his own people did not accept him. But to all who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to all who believe in the name of him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself. The Word was made flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. John appears as his witness. He proclaims: ‘This is the one of whom I said: He who comes after me ranks before me because he existed before me.’ Indeed, from his fullness we have, all of us, received – yes, grace in return for grace, since, though the Law was given through Moses,grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.   READ MORE     “The Son of God became a man to enable men to be sons of God.” - C.S. Lewis   A very merry Christmas to you all. Through the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ our infinite God entered our finate world in Bethlehem. On a cold, clear night lit by luminous stars, the incarnation of perfect love was born! “Christus natus est nobis: venite, adoremus”. “Christ is born for us: come, let us adore him”. May the joy of Christmas, which sings of the birth of the Saviour, be a special day for you all, your families, friends and loved ones. May beauty, peace, warmth and joy surround you! Merry Christmas! Patrick by Patrick van der Vorst