The Spratlys issue has been an on and off issue for the country and our long-term policy appears to be unclear. What makes it so complex is the fact that we are arrayed with our ASEAN neighbors, particularly Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, against the giant power of the region, China.

I'd like to share with you some of my observations and views. Let me go direct to the point since we are all generally familiar with the background.

The issue in the Spratlys is oil. Lots and lots of oil. Roughly around US$ 3 Trillion worth of oil plus natural gas and other mineral resources. And China's huge military might is apparently to clobber its tiny neighbors, including the Philippines, to dominate the vast oil deposits believed to be Spratlys.

This is according not only to a study of Cdr. H.R. Sanguinett of the British Royal Navy, but also several; well documented studies: one by Lieutenant Michael Studeman, intelligence officer of the U.S. Navy; a study prepared by the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, United Nations; and study of the Centre for International and Strategic Studies of York Universities, Canada.

In his article "Calculating China's Advances in the South China Sea, Identifying the Triggers of 'Expansionism'", Lt. Studeman's analysis of the Mischief reef situation is very interesting, to wit:

A Congressional inquiry on this is mandatory to determine whether the previous administration's alleged "faux pas" precipitated the 1995 Mischief Reef incident or the Chinese just used this as a convenient excuse.

The York University study ("The Implications of Hydrocarbon Developments in the South China Sea") reported that: "The Chinese in 1989 sent a survey vessel through the South China Sea and estimated that the Spratlys held deposits of 25 billion cubic metres of natural gas, 370,000 tons of phosphorous and 105 billion barrels of oil with an additional 91 billion barrels of oil in the James Shoal area.." At current oil prices, the oil deposits alone would amount to around US$3 Trillion! (Note: That's equivalent to 40 years of the Philippine's current GNP.)

Is China prepared to kill for this kind of oil deposits?

Definitely, according to the study of the UN General Assembly Special Political Committee prepared in 1995. This report cited the one-sided encounter between naval forces of China and Vietnam, one of the claimants to parcels of the Spratlys, to wit: "in 1988, the Spratly Islands saw the first armed conflict over the islands in 14 years. On March 14, forces from the PRC and Vietnam did battle, sinking two Vietnamese naval vessels and leaving as many as 74 Vietnamese dead (numbers vary from source to source). Following this engagement, the Vietnamese claimed that the Chinese forces would not let them salvage their equipment or rescue their men."

This is something that the leaders of the AFP, particularly the Navy, must ponder in assessing how the Chinese Navy would respond in case of a confrontation.

The U.N. study further states: "As for the threat posed by the PRC, the nations of the area are convinced that the actions of China are dangerous. They have stated in a government document that the islands in the South China Sea would provide 'sheng cun keng jian', which translates into 'survival space', not a very far cry from the German word 'lebensraum'... In February of this year, the PRC claimed Mischief Reef, part of the Kalayaan group of islands claimed by the Philippines. Not only were those reefs claimed, but structures have now been built upon them. Surveillance pictures of these structures look like photos of military installations found on other islands."

By the way, "Lebensraum" was the term used by Germany in their push for more space prior to the Second World War.

Incidentally, the U.N. Special Political Committee is usually assigned political, regional issues such as the Palestinian question, destabilization of Lebanon or the war in Eritrea. It appears that meriting the Committee's attention indicates the subject's gravity from a global standpoint.

In his published study, U.S. Navy Lt. Studeman observes that China is using its people's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) to "colonize" the Spratlys and sees the following pattern: "Sensitive to its power projection weaknesses and fearing negative political reactions stemming from a military presence in the maritime heart of Southeast Asia, China disguised the naval missions sent to the Spratlys in late 1987 and early 1988 as scientific expeditions. They involved oceanographic research vessels and warship escorts, which subsequently deposited 'scientists' and building materials on a number of reefs. Portraying its actions as 'non-aggressive,' China claimed that the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization had approved the construction of weather research stations on the cays in question. This defensible justification provided a convenient pretext for an increased naval presence and helped forestall a direct confrontation with Vietnamese forces during the early stage of occupation."

When the Vietnamese sent aircraft and warships to monitor the Chinese activities, especially Chinese naval vessels, a series of brushes ensued culminating in the encounter in mid-March 1988 resulting in the sinking of a Vietnamese auxiliary and heavy damage to a Vietnamese LST, and, worse, the loss of more than 70 Vietnamese lives.

This pattern of justifications and ruses, calling the Chinese activities in the Mischief Reef as fishing-oriented, followed by monitoring by Philippine aircraft and warships, look very similar to the 1988 confrontation with Vietnam. That's why DFA Secretary Siazon should summon again the Chinese Ambassador for further clarification on the activities of the Chinese at Mischief Reef, because I believe that the Philippines is being misinformed and misled by the Chinese.

Lt. Studeman warned about a Chinese article published in 1988 that states the following: "In order to make sure that descendants of the Chinese nation can survive, develop, prosper and flourish in the world in the future, we should vigorously develop and use the oceans. To protect and defend the rights and interests of the reefs and islands within the Chinese waters is a sacred mission... The [Spratlys] Islands not only occupy an important strategic position, but every reef and island is connected to a large area of territorial water and an exclusive economic zone that is priceless."

It is projected that China, previously a net exporter of oil as late as 1990, will need to import around 1,200,000 barrels of oil a day by the year 2000. China is obviously thirsting for the Spratlys' nearly 200 billion barrels of oil believed to be deposited in the area as estimated by the Chinese Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources.

Using their superior forces and technology, the Chinese have converted several of the reefs into garrisons and virtual mini-bases for their warships. Now, they have a chain of fortified reefs over a 120-nautical mile line pointing eastward like a dagger at the Palawan Passage and encircling the islands claimed by the Philippines, as well as acting as an observation post over the Reed Bank. These fortified reefs include the Fiery Cross Reef, Chigua Reef, Johnson Reef, Gaven Reef, etc. and the last target appears to be the Mischief Reef. If unchallenged, the Chinese apparently intend to construct huge concrete structures similar to those already existing in the aforementioned reefs.

The Philippines must deal with this issue with utmost prudence and firmness. We should exhaust all diplomatic channels and I note that the Executive Branch is already doing this. We should also act with prudence because of the capability of the Chinese to use force as demonstrated in their 1988 naval encounter with Vietnam. This policy of using force was observed by Cmdr. Sanguinett of the British Royal Navy: "Then, at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1992, the Law on the Territorial Waters and their Contiguous Areas was passed. This law formalised and articulated China's claims to territorial and maritime jurisdiction over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, and authorised the PLA Navy to use force to protect its sovereignty."

Notwithstanding that, it is noted that the Chinese have mellowed in their heretofore confrontational stance. In the York University paper, the author made this observation in relation to the 1994 incident, again, with Vietnam:

We can learn from the Vietnamese who have shown persistence and fortitude in fighting for their claims. Vietnam, a nation hardened by decades of fighting giant powers, has been engaged in near skirmishes with China inspite of the mauling they received from the Chinese Navy in 1988. Just last September, it was China that protested Vietnam's move to grab a few reefs. Of course, we do not have their naval vessels and cannot afford to be as confrontational.

In a separate House Resolution, I have proposed the review of our One China Policy. With our national interest as the principal consideration, a thorough public debate should be undertaken taking into consideration the economic, commercial, political and security aspects of said policy, always taking the long-term view. If only present trade and investment statistics are to be considered, the picture appears very clear: Trade with Taiwan is around three (3) times that of China, although China trade is growing much faster at 36 % vs. 20 % for Taiwan trade. Taiwan investments are much, much higher at a factor of 50 to 1.

I hope that the Spratlys situation will improve with the expected bilateral talks between President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and China's President Jiang Zemin during the current APEC talks. But some quarters are not so optimistic and I hope they are wrong. I also hope that however bleak the prospects are, avenues will be opened for Joint Development Agreement (JDA). As the York University paper suggests, "there are four main reasons states may be willing to enter into JDAs. First, the desire, in each state, to produce hydrocarbon resources outweighs the desire to win a boundary dispute, or some other item on the national agenda of each of the states. Second, the states already have close relations or they see the opportunity, in the JDA, to demonstrate trust, amity and friendship which will lead to closer relations. Third, where one or more state does not possess the technological expertise for offshore development and the others see the opportunity to gain by selling such technology to the others. Finally, when all lack sufficient management capacity, then by pooling resources in a JDA could allow all to effectively exploit their offshore resources."

I conclude by adopting the proposed JDA as a workable, just and amicable settlement of the Spratlys issue.

Thank you.

The U.S. will provide military assistance in the Spratlys for "peace and stability in the region."

This is the U.S. security doctrine for the Spratlys, as stated by the highest ranking U.S. military official in the Pacific area, Admiral Joseph W. Prueber, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Command (CINCPAC), the world's most powerful naval, air and land force.

But this is not because of any mutual defense treaty with the Philippines but to protect U.S. interest. That is, the U.S. will intervene in the Spratlys only if their interests are prejudiced in the South China Sea.

Documents show that sometime ago, in a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Jalan Tun Razek in Malaysia, Admiral Prucher said: "The Spratly Islands see a daily transit of 400 ships and in accordance with the US commitment to the freedom of the seas, we will provide whatever military assistance for the peace and stability of the region."

Prueber also said: "Issues related to China, Taiwan and the Spratly Islands are also of great concern to us."

Records of this conference reported Prueber as saying that "he is confident that the differences between Asia-Pacific nations could be settled through diplomacy. He was particularly impressed with ASEAN's stand in preferring to resolve the Spralty's dispute with China in such manner."

In view of the intransigent position of China on the Spratlys, the Philippines should start exploring other diplomatic channels especially the ASEAN multi-lateral forum.

The most logical diplomatic ally of the Philippines in the Spratly issue is Vietnam which has a long history of firm, sometimes confrontational stance with China on the Spratlys issue. In fact, records show that Vietnam had a bloody naval encounter with China in 1992 and then as late as September 1998 the Vietnamese navy succeeded in the reported "eyeball to eyeball" naval encounter with China in one of the disputed reefs. In this last incident, the Chinese vessels reportedly backed-off in the face of Vietnamese naval ships.

Moreover, both countries faced adversities as a result of years of being under colonial powers. Vietnam, like the Philippines, has a long history of struggle against French and American forces and the Philippines against Spanish and American forces. Both are developing countries almost the same size in population and both are aspiring to become economically developed.

In view of the intransigent position of China on the Spratlys, the Philippines should start exploring other diplomatic channels especially the ASEAN multi-lateral forum."

The most logical diplomatic ally of the Philippines in the Spratly issue is Vietnam which has a long history of firm, sometimes confrontational stance with China on the Spratlys issue. In fact, records show that Vietnam had a bloody naval encounter with China in March 1988, a near encounter in 1992 and then as late as September 1998 the Vietnamese navy succeeded in the reported "eyeball to eyeball" naval encounter with China in one of the disputed reefs. In this last incident, the Chinese vessels reportedly backed-off in the face of Vietnamese naval ships.

Moreover, both countries faced adversities as a result of years of being under colonial powers. Vietnam, like the Philippines, has a long history of struggle against French and American forces and the Philippines against Spanish and American forces. Both are developing countries almost the same size in population and both are aspiring to become economically developed.

The visit of U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to the Spratlys is a resounding success because this has elevated the Chinese incursion in the Mischief Reef, which is well within our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), into an international issue with a potential world audience. It also marks the first time that a full-force of the Philippine media was able to have a chance to see for themselves what the Chinese are doing at Mischief Reef.

President Estrada, Secretary Siazon and Secretary Mercado should be commended for giving Rohrabacher's Spratly's trip their full support in spite of the Chinese protests, unlike the way the Ramos administration apparently blinked when the Chinese protested in 1995 resulting in the cancellation of a scheduled media trip.

Rhorabacher promised that he will be our point man in the U.S. Congress in our effort to make international noise and make this an international issue to let the world know how a giant power like China is bullying a weak, small country like the Philippines which is simply protecting its EEZ.

Prior to his departure back to the States, Congressman Rohrabacher assured me that he will send his report to the Chairman of their House International Relations Committee within the last two working days of their Congress this year, and that is 14-15 December. Rohrabacher said that it was fortune that they still had sessions because of the Clinton impeachment proceedings or they would have adjourned for Christmas and would be back only after the new Congress has reorganized in late January 1999.

Thus, major actions can be expected from their powerful House International Relations Committee starting January 1999. It is this Committee which oversees and can pressure the U.S. Department of State with regard to U.S. policy on the South China Sea, particulary the Spratlys. I expect a U.S. congressional inquiry on the Spratlys to put pressure on the Clinton administration, thus ensuring Washington media attention and eventually greater international attention to the advantage of the Philippines.

I must stress that in my opinion, Rohrabacher is doing this not because of altruistic reasons or in support of the Philippines, but in support of his own personal legislative agenda in pursuit of U.S. interest. But since the Philippines will definitely benefits from U.S. Congress attention, we should support Rohrabacher's initiative and pursue congruent goals.

I cited to him the example of another U.S. Congressman, former Congressman Stephen Solarz, who gained national attention in the United States by seizing the "Marcos dictatorship issue" as part of his major personal legislative agenda item forcing the U.S. Department of State under the Secretary George Shultz to take an adversarial stance against the Marcos administrator in spite of the President Marcos' frienship with then U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Today, there are parallels, with the Clinton administrator perceived to be "soft" on China, as stated by Rohrabacher himself. But this can change as far as the Spratlys issue is concerned with the Republican-controlled U.S. House Committee in International Relations becoming hostile to Chinese moves in the Spratlys, after the first-hand report coming from Rohrabacher.

Rohrabacher will be the Spratlys expert of the U.S. House and shake U.S. officialdom and Beijing from that vantage point.

I also intend to personally go to Washington at my own personal expense, to meet, formally or informally, with the members of the U.S. House international Relations Committee to further enlighten them on Chinese incursions in the Spratlys and our EEZ. This is not to ask assistance but to use the U.S. House of Representatives, particularly the House on International Relations, as a forum to protest the Chinese incursions. This is part of the "noise barrage" that can be the best weapon of a small, weak nation like the Philippines.

I believe that it would be a blunder to limit the discussions to bilateral talks, as suggested by China and as espoused by a few quarters in the Philippines. There is no way that we can win in a bilateral forum, without multilateral and international discussions, because the Chinese will just stare us down, bludgeon us with their weight, and continue doing what they are doing, that is: Assure us with deceptive statements, or even blatant lies like saying they were just repairing their fishing facilities and that there were no Chinese navy ships in the area, and then just continue doing what they are doing which is to construct a circle of huge, concrete, hardened structures with radars, guns and helipads and make a mini-navy base out of Mischief Reef and its deepwater lagoon.

Thus, the Rohrabacher visit is a major diplomatic breakthrough achieved outside the formal, sometimes very cumbersome diplomatic channels. It will ben noted that the Chinese response to Rohrabacher's trip has been very mild, even timid, probably in the face of another "big boy" coming into the picture. Unlike their very noisy protests in 1995 when a Filipino media group was supposed to visit the Spratlys, thus resulting in the cancellation of that media trip, and again last month when PAF planes and PN ships went there to take a look, when they demanded that planes fly no lower than 5,000 feet and ships go no closer than two nautical miles.

Last Thursday, the huge, noisy C-130 flew at only 300 feet-close enough that we could see the frenetic welding sparks while their men were working on some steel parts-but the Chinese did not protest. Rohrabacher, who showed immense bravado in flying on board a twenty year old, third world C-130 in bad weather, was all praises afterwards for the flying skills of our PAF pilots who made several passes, practically skimming the waters to give us and Philippine media a close-up view of the Chinese structures and navy ships.

It must be stated that this matter should be handled as a diplomatic issue and this is the reason why it is the U.S. House International Relations Committee, not the Armed Serviced Committee that is looking into this. It is also the reason why my House Resolution on the Spratlys' calls for an inquiry by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and not by the Committee on National Defense. There is no intent to engage the PLA Navy now and in the future, except for defense, although I know that many brave AFP men have volunteered for a suicidal stand at Mischief Reef

But that notwithstanding, the information shared to me by Rohrabacher and his staff indicates that the U.S. expects a showdown with China over the South China Sea issue within 15 years or less. To support this position, Rohrabacher furnished me a copy of a Report to Congress by the U.S. Secretary of Defense required by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY98 which states that "The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a report.. on the pattern of military modernization of the People's Republic of China. The report shall address the probable course of military-technological development in the People's Liberation Army and the development of Chinese security strategy and military strategy, and of military organization and operational concepts, through 2015."

The Report to Congress of the U.S. Secretary of Defense categorically states: "Since the early 1990s, the focus of Chinese military strategy has been preparing for potential military contigencies along China's southeastern flank, especially in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Thus China's goal is to field forces of rapidly deploying to fight and win a future regional war under high-techology conditions along China's periphery."

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher called me up last night to advise me that he has commenced moves in the U.S. House of Representatives to support the Philippine government's strategy of internationalizing the Spratlys' issue.

Rohrabacher informed me of the following:

1. He is now finalizing a report on the Mischief Reef/Spratlys situation to be submitted in two days time to Cong. Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the U.S. House International Relations Committee.
2. He is also preparing a "Dear Colleague" letter to all the 400 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, thus ensuring full national awareness of the issue in the U.S.
3. He is arranging that this representation (Golez) appear before the U.S. House International Relations Committee and House National Security Committee (counterpart of Committee on National Defense), as well as call on Speaker-to be Bob Livingston sometime in February 1999. An earlier schedule is not possible because of the Christmas break and the reorganization of the U.S. House in January 1999. An appearance before the World Affairs Council in California is also being scheduled to help in greater awareness, particularly among Filipino-Americans.

The clamor for the review of the One China Policy is gaining ground with more supporters from the House of Representatives and the private sector.

This was reported by Congressman Roilo Golez, author (with Cong Edgar Lara and Cong. Enrique Garcia) of House Resolution No. 513 entitled "RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE REPORTEDLY UNFRIENDLY ACT OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT BY BUILDING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA OF THE MISCHIEF REEF IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, INQUIRING ON THE STATUS OF AFP MODERNIZATION PROGRAM AND URGING THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW ITS ONE-CHINA POLICY."

According to Golez, the momentum picked up with the filing of a related resolution by Iloilo City Congressman Raul Gonzalez, House Resolution No. 583 entitled "RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO REVIEW AND REEXAMINE THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN), AND TO STUDY THE DESIRABILITY OF RENEWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)."

The groundswell in the House started after the visit to Mischief Reef of U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and Congressman Golez, together with a big Philippine media group, where they saw for themselves the continued expansion of the Chinese structures at Mischief Reef and the presence of three Chinese navy ships in the area.

Many members of the House signed the Golez-Lara-Garcia (E.) resolution during the last two days, including the following prominent members: Representatives Plaridel Abaya, Rodolfo Aguinaldo, Rodolfo Albano III, Rolando Andaya, Jr., Agapito Aquino, Benigno Aquino III, Robert Ace Barbers, Salacnib Baterina, Rodolfo Bacani, Rolando Briones, Ignacio Bunye, Nancy Cuenco, Raoul del Mar, Zenaida Ducut, Tomas Dumpit, Rodrigo Duterte, Rodolfo Fariñas, Rodolfo Gonzales, Jose Mari Gonzalez, James Gordon, Ernesto Herrera, Constantino Jaraula, Josefina Joson, Henry Lanot, Julio Ledesma IV, Dante Liban, Renato Magtubo, Imee Marcos, Francis Nepomuceno, Juan Orola, Manuel Ortega, Jacinto Paras, Amadeo Perez, Jr., Prospero Pichay, Nestor Ponce, Allen Quimpo, Ralph Recto, Antonino Roman, Gerry Salapuddin, Ranjit Shahani, Grace Singson, Rodolfo Tuazon, Bernardo Vergara, Lawrence Wacnang, Edith Yotoko-Villanueva, Juan Miguel Zubiri, J. Apolinario Lozada, Jr., Leonardo Montemayor, Emerito Calderon, Melvyn Eballe, Orlando Fua, Jr., Eduardo Veloso, Ricardo Silverio, Rene Silos, Fausto Seachon, Angelo Montilla, Roy Padilla, Ma. Elena Palma-Gil, Manuel Parcon, Cresente Paez, Efren Herrera, Gregorio Ipong, Renato Leviste, Roan Libarios, George Hofer, Salvio Fortuno, Douglas Cagas, Elias Bulut, Juan Pablo Bondoc, Napoleon Beratio, Alex Bascug, Augusto Baculio, Alipio Badelles, Mayo Almario, Harlin Abayon, Josefina Dominguez and Benasing Macarambon, Jr.

Congressman Rohrabacher submitted on Dec. 15 1998 his Spratlys and Mischief Reef report to the U.S. House of Representatives, particularly U.S. Speaker of the House-designate Robert Livingston and Congressman Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee and he immediately furnished Congressman Roilo Golez a copy.

Golez said that this is a hard-hitting, no holds-barred report. "It will definitely rock the entire U.S. Congress, shake Washington officialdom and send a very strong wake-up call on China's design in the South China Sea and its bully tactics and incursions at Mischief Reef and the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. No doubt, there will be U.S. congressional hearings on China and the Spratlys and I expect stronger responses from the U.S. Government, particularly the Department of State, after the congressional hearings" Golez said.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher urged strong U.S. Government measures against China if it does not remove its facilities in Mischief Reef. "In order to defer a future war that would engulf the United States, China and most of Asia, the United States must develop a proactive policy to convince the Chinese to withdraw their forces from Mischief Reef and the Spratlys," Rohrabacher stated.

Rohrabacher recommended the following in his report Speaker-designate Robert Livingston and their House International Relations Committee:

1. "The U.S. Government must end its silence about the Chinese military buildup in the Spratlys. We should support the Philippines in demanding that the Chinese remove their facilities on Mischief Reef and respect the Philippines' EEZ. Silence by the Clinton administration is, in effect, complicit support of Chinese militaty aggression against our democratic ally and trade partners."

2. "Hearing should be considered in the International Relations Committee to address the issue. It is dangerous for the Administration to continue to hide this issue from the Congress and the American people. Now is the time to impress upon the Chinese the need to end their aggression toward their neighbors. From the horrific consequences of the silence by democracies while Hitler invaded 'German territories' in Czechoslavakia and when the Chinese invaded Manchuria, we should learn that the appeasement of dictators utimately leads to greater conflict."

(Note: Congressman Golez has been invited to attend these hearings and give briefing on the Spratlys situation. These hearing are aimed at pressuring the U.S. Department of State to change their policy on China relative to the South China Sea and the Spratlys. The Philippine Congressman will attend the hearings.)

3. "The U.S. should support efforts being made by the Philippines and other democratic Asian governments for a multilateral treaty ti include joint development and energy exploration to peacefully resolve disputed claims in the Spratly islands which are outside of sovereign nations' EEZ according to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Penalties on China should be considered if they continue to occupy Mischief Reef and continue belligerence toward their neighbors." (Note of Golez: This appears to consider joint development in the Spratlys except for areas, such as Mischief Reef, which is clearly within the Philippine EEZ.)

Rohrabacher also included a list of confidential recommendations pertaining to security and defense which Congressman Golez will disclose at the appropriate time. This pertains to the Philippines' financial limitations in revitalizing its defense capability in view of the current Asian economic crisis.

Rohrabacher, who was accompanied during his trip to the Philippines by a missile defense consultant and weapons expert, Jeffrey Baxter, was officially dispatched to the Philippines by International Relations Committee Chairman Gilman to have a first-hand look at the Spratly's situation, concluded that the "pattern of Chinese naval bases in the Spratlys shows as encircling strategy of the enery-rich islands and intimidating military presence along the vital sea route that connects the strategic Straits of Malacca with the Taiwan Strait, the only viable sea route that connects northern Asia to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, a route that carrries 70 percent of Japan's, South Korea's and Taiwan's vital energy and natural resources supplies. Equally important, it is vital sea lane for U.S. trade and naval forces, especially for Pacific Fleet response to crises in southern Asia and the Middle East."

Rohrabacher further stated that the "Chinese have constructed naval bases-that serve, in effect, as stationary aircraft or helicopter carries-that include anti-aircraft guns, field artillery, barracks and satellite communication antennas in the center of the South China Sea on Johnson Reef, Chigua Reef, Subi Reef and especially at Fiery Cross. Almost all of these facilities have helicopter landing pads, with helicopter-carrying warships patrolling the area. The Chinese, in addition to expanding the size of their blue-water fleet, now have helicopter-borne C-710 anti-ship missiles, which alert the military balance in the region. A number of Chinese 'fishing boats' seen around the reefs are believed to be intelligence ships which are capable of targeting ships for over-the-horizon weapons, as well as spying on naval traffic."

Rohrabacher further reported that they "observed the Chinese using dredging pumps to clear parts of the reef of its water cover in order to further expand construction. The Chinese may be attempting to transform the reef into a 'island' in order to bolster its strong-arm claim that all islands in the South China Sea belong to China under an antiquated colonial claims by the Ching Dynasty. This is as invalid a claim as if Mongolia used maps of Genghis Khan's Mongol Dynasty to claim Beijing and Shanghai as present-day Mongol territory."

The "Bottom Line" according to Rohrabacher is this: "Since 1995, while building its blue water navy and submarine forces, the Chinese navy has conducted a de facto encirclement of the Spratly Island through a growing number of permanent installations that serve as stationary aircraft and helicopter carriers, as well as intelligence and communications sites. Beijing's aggression, which threatens trade and military sea lanes vital to the United States and our allies, has now extended into an area that legally belongs to the Philippines and that is vital to that democratic country's economic stability."

China is targeting other reefs and shoals in the Spratlys Area, particularly shoals closer to the Philippines.

This is the conclusion reached during a breakfast meeting which I hosted attended by, among others, former U.S. Ambassador to China, Korea and Taiwan James Lilley, the tough talking former diplomat who is presently the Director of the Institute for Global Chinese Studies based in Washington, D.C.; Mr. James Kelly, President of the Pacific Forum CSIS based in Honolulu and Ralph Cossa, Executive Director, Pacific Forum CSIS.

Per information I received from various sources, China is reportedly targeting the following:
Scarborough Shoals
Sabina Shoal-only around 60 miles from Palawan; China already placed sovereignty markers there, but these have been blasted by alert Philippine Navy patrols.
First Thomas Shoal-only around 60 miles from Palawan; China already placed sovereignty markers there, but these have been blasted by alert Philippine Navy patrols.
Pennsylvania Shoal-around 100 miles from Palawan; China installed buoys and steel frames.
Second Thomas Shoal-around 120 miles from Palawan; China in fact placed sovereignty markers there, but these have been blasted by alert Philippine Navy patrols.

There is no doubt that China's naval units will go back to the said shoals if the Philippine Navy lets its guards down. The aforementioned experts in China strategy and intentions believe that Beijing is capable of repeating or "emulating" their "success" at Mischief Reef.

The other day, the Office of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher inquired on the veracity of reports that China has occupied more reefs and shoals located much closer to the Philippines than Mischief Reef. They must be referring to the aforementioned shoals.

The Mischief Reef issue is now the focus of attention of various international groups which are closely monitoring the developments there, particularly the Chinese structures.

Over the weekend, the aforementioned prominent personalities came to town to attend the Pacific Security Forum held at EDSA Plaza and to dig deeper into the latest Mischief Reef developments.

The Pacific Forum serves as the autonomous Asia-Pacific arm of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C.; it is guided by a Board of Governors chaired by former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

In my personal discussion with former Ambassador James Lilley (who often appears on CNN as a resource person for Asian issues) and James Kelly, the two urged that the Philippine government consider the following points:

1. We should be persistent in raising the issue of Chinese encroachments in Mischief Reef in every international forum, especially those attended by Chinese delegates.

2. More than any country in recent history, the Chinese have a record of using force in a territorial dispute.

3. China will only understand one language: the language of force, as demonstrated by the action of the U.S. 7th Fleet in response to the live fire missile exercise conducted by China across the Taiwan Straits in March 1996.

4. China is evidently implementing a policy of "eastward push" now that this border tension with Russia has diminished with the break-up of the former Soviet Republic.

The two personalities are experts on the South China Sea, not only because of their previous positions, but also because of constant involvement in conferences and fora on the South China Sea.

They furnished this representation a copy of a 1998 Pacific Forum CSIS Special Report entitled "Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict" prepared by Ralph Cossa, Executive Director, Pacific Forum CSIS. The report is based on an International Conference recently held in Manila attended by high-powered delegates from the Malaysian Ministry of Defense, National Security Council (Philippines), Armed Forces of the Philippines, Republic of Vietnam, Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines), U.S. Naval Post Graduate School, South Korea Ministry of National Defense, National Security Council of Taiwan, Center for International and Security Studies of York University (Canada), Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs, U.S. Embassy in Manila, Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (Philippines), Japan Institute of International Affairs, People's Republic of China, South Korea, George Washington University, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand), Asian Wall Street Journal, Indonesian Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate of U.S. CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Forces).

The report highlights the following:

1. "Particular attention is paid to a PRC-initiated conflict, given China's military capabilities and past history and the demonstrated ability of the ASEAN claimants to handle territorial and other disputes peacefully….China is the most capable of using force and, unlike the other claimants, has not foresworn its use in settling territorial disputes with its neighbors. In fact, in 1992, the Chinese legislature enacted a 'Law on the Territorial Waters and their Contiguous Areas' which specifically authorized the use of force in defending and enforcing China's broad sweeping claim over all the island territories in the South China Sea."

2. "... it should be noted that Chinese seizure of additional islands today most likely would seriously overtax People's Liberation Army (PLA) power projection and logistical capabilities. The PLA's ability to effectively defend newly-captured territory far removed from its mainland bases is also suspect."

3. "The U.S. generally has maintained a policy of neutrality when it comes to conflicting territorial claims, be they in the Spratlys or elsewhere. Washington has also pointed out that the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty does not automatically cover the Spratlys since they are disputed territory which were not even claimed by Manila until after the Treaty was signed. For this reason, the PRC's encroachment into uninhabited Mischief Reef in 1995 did not automatically invoke the Treaty - - although it did launch endless speculation from the Manila press that the U.S. was a 'faithless' ally."

"A PRC military action against a Philippine-occupied reef or islet is a different matter, however, as would be a PRC hostile act against Philippine naval vessels within recognized territorial waters or the high seas - - perhaps even within contested waters in close proximity to the Philippines as well. In all probability, either the Treaty would be invoked under such circumstances or some other means would be found to provide U.S. support to its Philippine ally."

4. "The PRC expansion into Mischief Reef in early 1995 is the most egregious example of creeping occupation. Beijing's unilateral action, accomplished and enforced by PLA naval forces, stands in sharp contrast to decisions by the ASEAN States and Taiwan to avoid unilateral provocative actions that affect the status quo

"The shadow cast by the PRC structures on Mischief Reef stands in sharp contrast to the words expressed by China's leaders about avoiding provocative action and honoring the 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea… As it stands now, China's unilateral action in Mischief Reef remains a potentially dangerous precedent which others, and perhaps Beijing again, might emulate."