Deliberations of the Spratly convention.excerpts of minutes Note for pappie alfie: imohang lines bro kay kaning china so si paul mu storya una ug ininsik then maw ni ang translation kumbaga diri..

Brunei:Mr. President, speaking in behalf of Brunei, we would like to clarify Article 1, paragraph 1 which provides, There shall be prohibited, inter-alia, any measures or movement of military nature, and paragraph 2 which says, The present Treaty shall not forestall the use of military personnel so there is by far an apparent contradiction between the two provisions. So we would like to know if there is somehow an interpretation which would tend to harmonize these conflicting provisions of the Treaty.Malaysia: For and in behalf of Malaysia, we humbly submit our view to that inquiry. It is that paragraph 1 of Article 1 states that there shall be prohibited any measures or movement of military nature, and as to paragraph 2, Article 1 states The present Treaty shall not forestall the use of military personnel. If we will read these two paragraphs without noticing or considering the qualifying terms used in the article, then we will really see a prominent ambiguity. However, these two paragraphs are well qualified. As for Paragraph 1, Article 1, it is qualified by the use of the sentence such as the further establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, and as for paragraph 2, it is qualified by for scientific research, economic exploitation, So, as to paragraph 2, the use of military personnel cannot be considered as any measures or movements of a military nature because such use of said military personnel is for scientific research, economic exploitation, excavation or drilling operations, and, which does not necessarily fall under the purview of the qualifying circumstance embodied in paragraph 1, i.e., such as the further establishment of military bases and fortifications.-----------------------------------------Malaysia: the Malaysian government would like to raise the concern regarding the military operation and equipments including the weapons stationed at Spratly Islands. Based on the draft, there is an Article regarding the reduction of those matters. However, the draft merely states the general statements, the general provisions regarding the reduction. The Malaysian government would like to raise that there should be specific details regarding what kind of military equipments and weaponry that should be reduced.Vietnam: For and in behalf of Vietnam, we agree to the proposition of Malaysia that there should be an Article embodied in the Treaty that shall specify the weapons and equipments or armaments that are to be reduced which were existing prior to entry into force of the Treaty. So do the other Contracting States agree to this proposition?All agreeTaiwan: Before and in behalf of Taiwan, we would like to reduce number of battle tanks deployed in the Spratly Islands.Brunei: For and in behalf of Brunei, we are concerned on several combat aircrafts. We would like it to be destroyed or withdrawn, and if cannot be done at least be reduced to non-combatant or just a training aircraft.China: In behalf of China, we would like to include under the limitations the submarines and brigade destroyers. It should be disposed of or reduced by withdrawing or retaining the vessels exclusively for peaceful purposes.Philippines: For the Philippines, we would like to include the armed forces stationed at the Spratly Islands to be reduced and subjected to reduction and limitations.

China: For and behalf of Peoples Republic of China, would like to point out that in the given draft, the provisions of Article 4 regarding the limitations and reductions of military operations, I think there is something lacking on the options given to us with regards to the reduction of our armaments. I think we should include the withdrawal as part of the option. Withdrawal of forces, weapons or military equipments rather than destruction of our arms or artillery, battle tanks and the like because the modes presently provided will truly prejudice not only our security interest due to the reduction but also to the funds of our government since destruction would waste the millions of dollars we have spent on those weaponry.;All: We agreeAll agree-----------------------------Taiwan: In behalf of Taiwan, what do you mean by claims and conflict? What are the definitions of these terms?Philippines: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. For and in behalf of the Philippines, we would like to answer that. A claim shall refer to a sovereign act of state showing certain exhibit of jurisdiction over a territory, which constitute: 1) the intention and will to act as a sovereign, and 2) some actual exercise activity or display of such authority or jurisdiction. And for conflict, it shall refer to opposing action of incompatibilities of such states. Then, just for clarification, with respect to claims, claims as defined have two elements: first, the intention and second, the actual exercise. So meaning, there should be, for example,( wa nay sumpay)Presiding Officer: any objections to the definition stated by the Philippines?All: silencePresiding Officer: for that matter, I take such silence as concurrence in favor of the definition(ari sugud sedfrey)Taiwan: For and in behalf of Taiwan, we would like to bring your attention to Article V, Territorial Claims, specifically on paragraph 1 which states Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in the Spratly Islands However, Taiwan and China are claiming the whole part of Spratly Islands. Does it not have the effect of invalidating all the other claims of the other states which are parties to this Treaty? What does paragraph 1 mean exactly?Philippines: We, as representatives of our country would like to answer but before that, we will rephrase or simplify your question. Since Taiwan and China are claiming all of Spratly Islands, then does it mean to say, pursuant to paragraph 1 that claims of the other states aside from Taiwan or China are thereby renounced? So my answer to that, just to clarify that the term claim consist of two elements, first, the intent to act as sovereign and second, some actual exercise of the sovereign. So if you try to look at paragraph 1, it also has a qualifying statement which is there shall be no renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in the Spratly Islands which it may have whether as a result of its activities, actual occupation and possession, some actual exercise or display of authority, so, it is very clear in this paragraph that such basis of that claim is a result of activities or actual occupation and possession, meaning, claims that cannot be diminished are only those founded upon actual occupation and possession. So, those islands which were occupied by China before the Treaty was entered into force shall no longer be diminished, but verbal claims have no room in this Treaty and will not be respected.

--------------------------------------------------------Vietnam: Speaking for and in behalf of the Vietnam, we would like to bring your attention to our concern on whenever we have amendments or modifications with respect to certain provisions to this Treaty; we propose that we shall also have meetings or any other proceedings necessary for the purpose. Does anybody have an objection?China: in behalf of China, we agree on the proposal of the Vietnam.All agreeTaiwan: For and in behalf of Taiwan, we would want to know the subsequent venue(s) after the first assembly after the Treaty enters into force. China: For and in behalf of China, we recommend that Xiamen, China be the permanent venue for each meeting.Philippines: The Philippines would like to propose that the first meeting will be in Xiamen, China but the subsequent dates and venues of the meetings will be subject to agreement so that in the final Treaty we would add the provision that subsequent dates and venues be subject to agreement.All agree-------------------------------------------Brunei: In behalf of Brunei, we would like to clarify on this issue on limitation and reduction because how could we insure compliance on this if other Contracting States cannot inspect on this area which is having military establishments or military personnel or army. Meaning, how could we know if a certain state is violating this article because if one country cannot inspect, lets say country X, that they are already deploying an army of more than 1,000,000 forces. How do we confirm that it is true, that they are not deploying more than the maximum limitation as provided in the Treaty? So I propose that there be an article addressing the concerns that I just mentioned. [Open Access for Inspections of Claims Arising from State Activities.]China: In behalf of China, we agree. There should be a team or a group which will inspect if all States are complying with the provisions of the Treaty and would report to the UN?? of any violations.Malaysia: in Behalf of Malaysia, we would like to add regarding the proposition of Brunei that each country shall have at least one representative which will be chosen by their respective State. And that representative shall have the right to inspect and gain access to these establishments under the purview of the limitation as provided for in this article. We would also like to point out that there should be a meeting convened for such purpose in determining the rights of these representatives like immunity from prosecution such as what is enjoyed by an diplomat. Presiding Officer: does anybody have an objection to this propositions? Silence all agree

All agree.