World court and the Spratlys (2)
The problem is that China, including the rest of the claimant-states, repudiates such claim as a “unilateral assertion” that has no basis in international law.
China insists they’ve asserted its ownership of Spratlys long before Phl became a colony of Spain for a period of over 400 years.
For everyone’s better understanding (pardon this space, but it suspects many are now joining the passionate scrutiny of the Spratlys issue without really understanding what it is all about), we shall endeavor to clarify in a series of two or three what the Spratlys puzzle is all about, why we are in the middle of it and whether or not the basis of our claim over these islands is consistent with accepted principles in international law.
But first, let us hasten an “educated speculation” that China’s recent round of bullying tactics to underscore its claim over the Spratlys appears to have been impelled by its sud-den, if urgent, need for SUFFICIENT supply of oil/fuel to keep its engines of operation and production running.
Traditionally, China got steady supply of oil from Arab and South African countries, notably Libya.
But current political tur-oil in these juxtaposed regions have significantly slowed down their oil production to the point of inconveniencing China.
China has to resurrect its interest in the Spratly group of islands because aside from their abundance in fish and corals, their seabed’s (economic and contiguous zone’s) gas deposit is supposed to be the same as that of Kuwait and estimated at around P492 trillion!
A whopping amount that could easily give every living Filipino today, old and young, a share of P1 Million. (To be continued)