The Philippines has publicly castigated China and its fishermen for damaging the coral- based ecosystem at Iroquois and Sabina reefs in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This criticism has been hyped and spread around the world. Others including the US and Japan have joined this China-bashing bandwagon.
The damage to marine ecosystems in the South China Sea and elsewhere is very worrying. But it should not be politicized by blaming only China. China may well be an environmental villain in the South China Sea, but it is not the only one. Moreover, its main accusers – the US and Japan – are also environmental villains, and on a larger scale.
Beijing protests
China has denied the Philippines’ allegations. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning said: “The relevant allegations of the Philippines side are false and groundless.” Beijing fired back at Manila by pointing out that the rusting Philippine warship and its “crew” on Second Thomas Shoal are constantly and indefinitely polluting the reef.
However, China has been found guilty before of similar wanton environmental damage in the Spratlys by an international arbitration panel pursuant to a complaint filed by the Philippines under the auspices of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The tribunal found that China had failed to prevent its fishermen from engaging in harmful harvesting of endangered species (giant clam) and of destroying coral reefs during its island-building in the Spratlys.
China may well be guilty of these current violations too. The Philippines says surveys indicate “visible discoloration and alteration of the natural topography” and that affected areas were vibrant ecosystems two years ago. A group of Chinese fishing boats have been observed there off and on.
The Philippines is considering filing a complaint with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. But it will have to be careful. So far the evidence is circumstantial.
Lost in the storm of sensationalism is the fact that the original accusations from the Philippine Coast Guard were qualified by the word “may.”
“The continued swarming for indiscriminate illegal and destructive fishing activities of China’s maritime militia may have directly caused the degradation and destruction.” Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro said he “suspected foreign entities may have harvested corals to carry out island-building work but the assertions including the Chinese vessels link to the incident needed to be validated.”
Also it has to be clear whether the damage was due to human activity or to severe storms that frequently pass through the are. Was it Chinese fisherfolk or fishermen from some other country, such as like Vietnam?
If it was Chinese fishermen, they would not be the first to damage the environment of these atolls or others in the course of making them accommodating for military use. All claimants, including the Philippines, have undertaken “reclamation” and construction on features they now occupy.
The process must have damaged coral reefs and the ecosystem they support. Moreover historically, the Philippine government did not prevent its fishing boats and fisherfolk from destructive “muro-ami” and blast-fishing in the Spratlys.
It would seem that the same principle and UNCLOS terms should apply equally to all ratifiers. Is the singling out of China due to its greater scale of depredation or the political fact that it is China, and China-bashing is once again in vogue?
Pleas of innocence ring hollow
The US and Japan are on rather shaky grounds in their criticism of China. The US has repeatedly damaged isolated reef systems in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Between 1968 and 1973 the entire population of the British-claimed Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia was removed, after which the US built a large naval and military base that has been in continuous operation ever since.
After the end of World War II, the US gained control of the Pacific atolls of Bikini and Enewetak in the Marshall Islands. During its tenure, the US evacuated the local residents many times, often involuntarily.
Sixty-seven nuclear tests were undertaken on these atolls from 1946 to 1958. It is projected that the majority of Enewetak may be fit for human habitation by the year 2026 or 2027 after nuclear decay and de-contamination make them safe. Bikini may never be “safe.”
As for Japan, its castigation of China for damaging the environment appears ridiculous given its discharge of radioactive waste from the Fukushima disaster into the Pacific Ocean. Even if it is “safe” it will destroy the market for seafood caught in the area and the livelihoods of those who depend on the fishery.
The political situation continues to deteriorate. Not content with its blocking activities at Second Thomas Shoal, China then laid a floating barrier across the entrance to Scarborough Shoal. The Philippines removed the barrier. We are holding our breath to see what happens next.