China’s demand to remove ship nixed | Global News

China’s demand to remove ship nixed

By: - Reporter / @TarraINQ
/ 02:47 AM March 15, 2014

Screengrab from https://wikimapia.org

The Philippines has rejected China’s demand to pull out a grounded Philippine Navy ship from the disputed Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) in the South China Sea.

In a statement on Friday, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) reiterated the Philippines’ ownership of Ayungin Shoal in the disputed Spratlys group, saying it is part of the country’s continental shelf.

Article continues after this advertisement

China earlier blocked two Philippine ships bringing supplies from reaching a small contingent of Filipino soldiers stationed in a rusty ship at the shoal, escalating the tensions in the area. The Philippines and the United States have protested Beijing’s action as provocative.

FEATURED STORIES

DFA spokesperson Raul Hernandez said that the ship, the BRP Sierra Madre, was sent to the Ayungin Shoal in 1999 to serve as a permanent government outpost in response to China’s occupation in 1995 of the nearby Mischief Reef, that is also claimed by the Philippines.

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea, resource-rich waters where neighboring nations also have claims.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The Philippines reiterates that Ayungin Shoal is part of its continental shelf over which the Philippines has sovereign rights and jurisdiction,” the DFA said.

Article continues after this advertisement

It said the Philippines never made the “unequivocal commitment” to pull out of the shoal, as China claimed on Thursday.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The BRP Sierra Madre, a commissioned Philippine Naval Vessel, was placed in Ayungin Shoal in 1999 to serve as a permanent Philippine Government installation in response to China’s illegal occupation of Mischief Reef in 1995. This was prior to the signing of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002,” said the DFA statement.

The DOC stipulates that parties must refrain from “inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features.”

Article continues after this advertisement

The declaration also secured the commitment of parties involved to “the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea,” consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The DFA issued the comments in response to Beijing’s assertions on Thursday that it was right to drive away Filipino ships from the shoal, known as Ren’ai Reef in China, as it accused the Philippines of carrying construction materials to “China’s island.”

The Armed Forces has continued to refrain from commenting on China’s allegation that the civilian ships hired by the military was bringing construction materials to the shoal, saying the DFA was tasked to answer such questions.

The US Embassy in Manila and the US State Department separately issued statements on Wednesday calling the Chinese action of blocking the entry of the Philippine ships into the shoal “a provocative move that raises tensions.” With a report from Nikko Dizon

RELATED STORIES

 

Philippines won’t give up Ayungin shoal—DFA

Philippines protests Ayungin Shoal incident

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

2 PH ships driven out of Ayungin Shoal–China foreign ministry

For comprehensive coverage, in-depth analysis, visit our special page for West Philippine Sea updates. Stay informed with articles, videos, and expert opinions.

TAGS: Ayungin Shoal, BRP Sierra Madre, China, Mischief Reef, Philippine Navy, Raul Hernandez, South China Sea, West Philippine Sea

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.