Category: South China Sea

Jackson Atoll, five coral islets surrounding a lagoon

The Chinese have not occupied Jackson Atoll (Philippine name is Quirino and Wufang Jiao in Chinese) in the Spratlys, as erroneously reported in Philippines media.

Not yet.

But the Chinese were there last December as related by the spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Hong Lei in his regular press briefing last March 2.

Hong said “At the end of the year 2015, a foreign vessel was grounded near Wufang Jiao of China’s Nansha islands. The owner of the vessel tried many times to tow it away but failed. He then decided to abandon the ship and dismantled and took away its main equipment. If the vessel was left aground for a long time, it might cause possible impediment to navigation safety and damage to the marine environment. Therefore, China Rescue and Salvage of Ministry of Transport recently sent salvage ships to tug the grounded vessel out of the shallow water for proper disposal. During the operation, the Chinese side advised fishing boats near the waters to stay away for navigation security and operation safety. The Chinese ships have returned after the operation.”

Although Hong only said “foreign vessel,” one news report said it was a Philippine-registered fishing vessel.

Diplomatic sources said China had to immediately remove it from Jackson Atoll as it didn’t want another “Ayungin” to happen.

It will be recalled that in 1999, the Philippine Navy “placed” the BRP Sierra Madre, in the guise of it having run aground, in Ayungin Shoal to serve as a permanent Philippine Government installation in response to China’s illegal occupation of Mischief Reef, about 50 nautical miles away, in 1995.

The BRP Sierra Madre in Ayungin Shoal is being manned by a small contingent from the Philippine Marines.

What makes the Jackson Atoll incident disconcerting is that the Chinese have come and left the coral reef, some 140 nautical miles west of Palawan, and Philippine authorities only knew about it more than two months after.

Western Command chief Vice Admiral Alexander Lopez, denying the Philippine Star report of a Chinese occupation of Jackson Atoll, said, “There is no continued or sustained presence by the Chinese there. It’s not true that they have control of Quirino Atoll. We had a flight their last Feb. 24, the Chinese are no longer there. In fact, Filipino fishermen are already there…Definitely, that’s unoccupied.”

A China rescue and salvage ship – sent to remove a fishing vessel from Jackson atoll

Jackson Atoll, a ring-shaped coral reef that has five (earning for itself the name Jackson Five) closely spaced islets on it encircling a lagoon, is being claimed by the Philippines, China and Vietnam.

Unoccupied, its location is crucial – between the Philippine-occupied Lawak (Nashan) island and China-occupied Mischief Reef (Philippine name is Panganiban. Meiji Reef to the Chinese) which has now been turned into a military base with an airfield.
Magdalo Rep. Ashley Acedillo said there is a need for the government to increase its presence in Jackson Atoll given that five years ago, China had already targeted it.

In 2011, VERA Files reported that a Chinese warship fired at Filipino fishermen in Jackson atoll.

A portion of the VERA Files report:

“’This is Chinese Warship 560. You are in the China territory. Leave the area immediately.”

“Upon hearing this warning through a marine band radio, three Philippine boats fishing in Quirino, or Jackson atoll, a Philippine-claimed islet off Palawan in the disputed Spratly Islands, scampered away.

“But the Chinese warship still fired three shots at the vessels F/V Jaime DLS, F/V Mama Lydia DLS and F/V Maricris 12. The Philippine Navy later identified the Chinese warship as Dongguan, a Jianghu-V Class missile frigate.

“The incident in the South China Sea happened on Feb. 25—before March when the Philippine-commissioned seismic vessel was reportedly harassed in Reed Bank in western Palawan and before the Chinese vessels laid steel posts and a buoy in May in the Amy Douglas (Iroquois) Bank southwest of Reed Bank which Manila said is within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone.”

In the Philippine Star report last week, fishermen complained about “gray and white Chinese ships” (Chinese Navy) preventing them from going to the Jackson Atoll lagoon which is their traditional fishing ground.

The decision on the Philippine suit against China before the United Nations Arbitral Court is expected soon.

The Chinese have always been known to be reactive: It occupied Mischief Reef in 1994 after joint development talks between China and the Philippines over gas-rich Reed Bank broke down and the Ramos administration granted an oil exploration permit to Alcorn Petroleum and Minerals.

China started the reclamation in Spratlys after the Philippines filed the suit questioning its nine-dash line map before the U.N. and the decision of the Aquino government to allow American troops to return to the Philippines.

The recent Chinese activities in Jackson Atoll should serve as alarm bells to Philippine authorities.

Personnel measure the girth of trees on Taiping Island. Photo from Taiwan’s Foreign ministry.

(Conclusion)

The issue of whether Itu Aba (also known by its Chinese name “Taiping” and Philippine name “Ligaw”) is an island or a rock has become a battle of experts.

In the hearing at The Hague last Nov 30 on the Philippine suit against China’s nine-dash-line and constructions in submerged maritime features in the Spratlys, the American lawyer of the Philippines, Paul Reichler, presented a 1994 study which was the result of a botanical expedition funded by the Republic of China (Taiwan)’s Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan.

Reichler quoted from the study which stated: “The underground water is salty and unusable for drinking.”

Reichler said “There is no potable water. Drinkable water by itself may not be a sufficient condition to sustain human habitation, but it is certainly a necessary one. Itu Aba does not satisfy it.”

The American lawyer also said “The island is an atoll consisting of a tropical 10 reef covered with sandy coral and shell.” That is: no topsoil. … Without tillable soil, there is no agricultural production sufficient to sustain human habitation.”

Reichler concluded: “This (Itu Aba) is a rock.”

Rocks, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS, “which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

In a lecture on the South China Sea at Ateneo de Manila last year, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said if the U.N. Tribunal favors the Philippine government’s assertion that Itu Aba is not capable of human habitation or economic life of its own, “the tribunal will then declare that Palawan has a full 200 nautical mile Economic Exclusive Zone facing the West Philippine Sea.”

The implication of this is astounding. “This means,” Carpio added, “that all submerged features within this EEZ, like the Reed Bank and Malampaya, are subject to exclusive economic exploitation by the Philippines in terms of fisheries, oil and gas, and mineral resources.”

Furthermore, Carpio said, “If the Philippines has a full 200 NM EEZ in Palawan facing the West Philippine Sea, only the Philippines can create artificial islands on submerged areas or erect structures on LTEs (Low Tide Elevation) within its 200 NM EEZ. Artificial structures or reclamations made by other countries, namely by China and Vietnam, are illegal.”

What about if the U.N. Tribunal ruled Itu Aba is an island, capable of human habitation or economic life of its own?

Carpio said, then the case as far as Itu Aba and Palawan are concerned becomes an issue of overlapping EEZs (The distance between Palawan and Itu Aba is 225 NM), outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction in view of China’s reservation excluding boundary delimitation issues from compulsory arbitration.

The Philippine legal panel presented in the The Hague hearing Australian Professor Clive Schofield, an expert in maritime boundary delimitation and marine jurisdictional issues and has written a number of articles on Itu Aba.

Schofield told the tribunal: “At first glance, Itu Aba and one or two of the other partially vegetated and occupied features may appear as though they might be able to escape the net of Article 121(3). However, on closer examination, they cannot, because they lack the key requirement for full island status, namely the presence of civilian populations, the availability of potable water, and the existence of agricultural or economic activity. Not coincidentally, they are also rather small. “

Article 121 (3) is UNCLOS definition of rocks.

Schofield further said, “That is why we reached the conclusion, from a scientific and geographic perspective, and having regard for the conditions set out in Article 121(3), that Itu Aba is most appropriately treated as an Article 121(3) “rock”.

Taiwan, which occupies Itu Aba, and like China also claims almost the whole of the South China Sea (some of the features in the area are also being claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei) insists Itu Aba is an island.

Taiwan is not a participant in the The Hague hearing but recently, Yann-huei Song, a research fellow in the Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica in Taipei, wrote in Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative online site attesting that water in Itu Aba is potable.

He said he has been to Itu Aba four times. He belittled the testimony of Schofield, who, he said, has never been to Itu Aba.
Yan-Huei said “But I suspect he (Schofield) would change his opinion if he were invited to visit the island and, like me, had the chance to drink fresh water from the skimming well and eat a lunch of cooked vegetables and fruits picked from the island’s garden.”

The Philippine legal team latched on to the term “skimming well.”

Interior Minister Chen Wei-zen drinks water from the well in Itu Aba.Photo from Taiwan’s foreign ministry.

Reichler said according to the United States Department of Agriculture, the skimming well is a technique employed with an intention to extract relatively freshwater from the upper zone of the fresh-saline aquifer. “

Reichler further said: “Certainly the Taiwanese troops on Itu Aba could not survive from whatever it is that this facility produces. That is why Taiwan built two modern desalination facilities in 1993. And that constitutes further proof that there is no naturally occurring water on the feature that is suitable for drinking, much less sustaining human habitation.”

Yan-Huei’s article said:”During my four visits to Itu Aba, I have seen indigenous plants that are more than 32 feet (10 meters) tall. There is a nearly 4,000-foot (1,200-meter) runway, two piers, a guest-house building, a postal office, a small hospital, a big agricultural garden, livestock, and a temple. In addition to drinkable water that is available at the four skimming wells, indigenous soil on the island has also long been used for growing fruits, including banana, coconut, and papaya, and vegetables such as wild bitter squash, loofah, and cabbage. It should also be noted that internet and cell phone access are available on Itu Aba, along with solar power for electricity.”

All those amenities, of course, do not answer the basic question: Is Itu Aba an island or a rock?

We await the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal’s word on that.