By Adolfo Quizon Paglinawan

 

Series Seven: Forever Peace or Forever Wars

The best proof that SeaLight is having a “brownout” of narratives is Raymond Powell’s shallow excursion to a glimpse of Prehistoric Philippines by Chinese scholars, exposing the deep cultural heritage of Batanes, a group of 10 islands north of Luzon and south of Taiwan – divided by the Bashi channel, with only three of which inhabited: Batan, Itbayat and Sabtang.

SeaLight is a maritime surveillance tool of Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation. The platform uses commercially available technology to peddle transparency and reporting on activities at sea. It is funded by the United States Naval Institute. So, in short, it acts as satellite-powered spy group tracking Chinese activities in the South China Sea.

Ju Hailong, dean of Jinan University’s School of International Studies, argued that Batanes was administered as part of Taiwan Prefecture during the Ming and Qing dynasties. He noted that the northernmost island of the Batanes chain lies about a mere 54 nautical miles from Taiwan’s southernmost Lanyu Island, claiming they are not only geographically closer to Taiwan than Luzon, but are also a natural extension of the island, only 105 miles from Basco, the capital of Batanes

Wang Yuanyuan, a researcher at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, cited Ming Dynasty navigation records documenting the islands along the Xiamen-Luzon sea route. She also claimed that the more than 10,000 Ivatan residents of Batanes share linguistic and cultural links with the Tao people of Lanyu and that their cultural heritage originated from China.

Filipino anthropologists in 2023 confirmed that the elderly inhabitants of Batanes still speak the Tao language—proof that their ancestors migrated from the Taiwan region some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.

We are actually talking about two very close relatives! The Ivatan of Batanes, Philippines, and the Tao, the indigenous people of Lanyu, Taiwan (also known as Orchid Island) are essentially siblings of the same womb.

They speak closely related Austronesian languages, share similar traditional seafaring canoes (tatala), and trace their origins to the same ancient maritime ancestry. Both are renowned as fierce and resilient survivors of harsh, typhoon-prone environments.

Map speaks

The Chinese academics argued that the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the 1946 Treaty of Manila that relinquished U.S. sovereignty over to and recognized the independence of the Republic of the Philippines. established the Philippines’ northern territorial boundary at 20 degrees north latitude, placing Batanes outside the territory transferred to the Americans by Spain.

“A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich…”

                   Philippine weakness, exposed. Our official treaty limits do not include the Batanes Islands.

          The claim that Batanes was officially incorporated into the Spanish East Indies on June 26, 1783, making it an established part of the Philippines, does not come from an expert source but from a Philippine copyright as recent as year 2000 by Rex Bookstore, which is more than two centuries after.

The Chinese scholars further contended that post-World War II treaties requiring Japan to return territories seized from China should have included Batanes because they considered the islands appurtenant to Taiwan.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration stated

“It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”

The statutory construction flows through the 1945 Potsdam Conference, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, the 1952 Treaty of Taipei and the 1972 Joint Communique between Japan and the Peoples Republic of China.

The symposium, however, concluded that the Philippines’ present administration of Batanes is merely a postwar fait accompli that lacks legal basis.

For its part, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) soberly declared that the Philippines’ sovereignty over Batanes is “settled and not up for debate” and dismissed these assertions as “flights of fancy” and “revisionist claims”. Furthermore, the DFA highlighted that even China’s own consular framework recognizes Batanes as Philippine territory, as the province falls under the consular district of the Chinese Consulate General in Laoag.

With no appetite for lawfare, China reiterated as recent as 2012, through Wang Yi, its China’s foreign minister, their recognition of the 1898 Treaty of Paris limits.

(This of course does not include expired Justice Antonio Carpio’s hyper-interpretation flexing the 1900 Treaty of Washington. In addition, our problem in geography is self-inflicted. In addition, it was a Supreme Court decision GR 187167 with Carpio as ponente that supplanted our treaty limits  and endangering losing 803,104 square kilometers of territorial sea by upholding the constitutionality of our latest baselines law RA 9522 in exchange for inferior sovereign rights in order to gain over a million in exclusive economic zone in mostly disputed areas. Carpio’s GR187167 in effect illegally amended our 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions through judicial fiat. Rodante Marcoleta was trying to cure this in aid of legislation, but the stupid Senate leadership gagged him.)

American-led defense

Powell’s paranoia and intrigue, however, has sent Philippine defense officials and self-proclaimed maritime experts to panic and are now raising concerns over what they described as the possible start of a new Chinese “lawfare” campaign.

In a post on X, SeaLight confirmed that scholars at a June 30 symposium hosted by Jinan University in Guangzhou concluded that the Philippines’ control over Batanes “lacks historical and legal basis” and that the islands belong to China.

SeaLight said participants at the symposium “unanimously concluded that the Batanes Islands constitute a natural geographical extension of Taiwan, with sovereignty belonging to China, and that the so-called Japan-Philippines maritime delimitation negotiations in the area with the intention of joining their respective “exclusive economic zones”, hold no legal validity.”

“China saw an opportunity,” Powell said. “Japan and the Philippines announced negotiations. Japan used that pretext to do something that they wanted to do anyway, which is begin running these patrols east of Taiwan into the Philippine Sea. So, this is outside the 10-dash-line.”

“If the pretext was the talks, the escalation now is underway.”

While stressing that no Chinese government official has publicly asserted a claim over Batanes, the retired US airman now a US navy operative said the symposium could be a “trial balloon”, once again exhibiting a usual flaw in reasoning arguing from possibility to reality.

Immediately his echo mechanism gets triggered. Philippine Coast Guard  Commodore Jay Tarriela said he had only learned of the symposium and was discussing it with former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio:

“This is my first time to hear about it. We’re trying to figure out anong naging basehan na naman ng Chinese government or just the students, to claim na merong kaugnayan ang Batanes sa Taiwan.” (…what is the basis of China’s government or the student to claim any basis on Batanes having relations with Taiwan.)

Tarriela dismissed the reported conclusions as another attempt to justify China’s expanding claims, which is also a habit of the commodore making conclusions out of conjectures, and said the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) continue to patrol the Luzon Strait and waters surrounding Batanes while conducting maritime domain awareness (MDA) flights to monitor for any Chinese incursions.

For his part, CSIS-ADRi Stratbase fellow Renato de Castro said the Philippine government should not dismiss the symposium simply because it involved academics because he thinks the scholars cannot conduct the symposium under a theme that doses not have the approval of the Communist Party of China.

He also believes the move is linked not only to the planned Philippines-Japan maritime delimitation talks but also to Beijing’s long-term plans about the invasion of Taiwan by 2027. Speaking in the vernacular, he said the Chinese is also planning to occupy the so-called West Philippine Sea including the Luzon Strait.

Navy Rear Adm. Roy Vincent Trinidad, the military’s spokesman for the South China Sea, labeled the symposium’s conclusions a form of “salami slicing,” a term used to refer to China’s alleged attempts to enlarge its territory through small, calculated steps.

Latest Austronesian insights

I am not certain what sent the usual American geopolitical watchdogs Powell, Tarriela, Carpio, De Castro and Trinidad to start climbing walls, because what I gathered most from the symposium, you can find in Wikipedia on its pages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivatan_people and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_people

Panic attacks in dogs can be triggered by a variety of factors, including separation anxiety, noise phobias like thunderstorms or fireworks, past traumatic experiences, environmental changes, or medical conditions such as pain, arthritis, or sensory decline. Some dogs may have a genetic predisposition to anxiety, while others develop panic attacks due to learned behaviors or stressful life events, such as moving to a new home or the introduction of new family members or pets.

But those who show canine devotion to the United States among Filipinos (AsoAms) seem to chase American funding more than any psychological syndrome.

What shocks me is their exposed lack of anthropological appreciation of the Austronesian people and their historical shared heritage.

Among Asian Century Journal resource persons, it is Tanggulang Demokrasya expert Jing Mable who has done extensive studies in their migration. Commenting on a Facebook post by Pepe Alas on Pre-Hispanic Philippines, Mable wrote:

“Alas! There goes the ignorant ranting about our ninunos.(ancestors) Has he not heard of Ninunong Tabon and his control over his environment? Has he not read about the Austronesians whose civilization was fathered in the islands of Luzviminda (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao)? Has he not read records of ancient Chinese scholars of 8 to12 AD extolling the honesty and orderly conduct of the Sandao (taong pulo- island dwellers) the peoples of the Sansui (3 islands)? Perhaps Pigafetta Chirino or Loarca would be more credible sources for Alas being Europeans? Saan ka nagaral Alas? (Where did you study?) Ateneo o UP? Read more about something before you form an opinion.”

That should give you a sense that Mable is nowhere the cellar league of Powell, Tarriela, Carpio, De Castro and Trinidad when it comes to history.

While having discussions with Rizalistas under Max Villoronte in Nueva Ecija, she gave me a passing lectura narrating that since H. Otley Beyer first proposed his wave migration theory, numerous scholars have approached the question of how, when and why humans first came to the Philippines. As that was more than 12 years ago, let me refresh her thoughts with inputs from Wikipedia.

Two schools of thought. The various “Out of Sundaland” hypotheses, assume that instead of the Philippines the origin of the Austronesian peoples as being the now sunken landmass of what is now modern Sumatra, Java, Borneo and the Malay peninsula.

The most widely accepted hypothesis, today, is the “Out-of-Taiwan” model, first proposed by Peter Bellewood, which largely corresponds to linguistic, genetic, archaeological, and cultural evidence. The Austronesians originated from  prehistoric seaborne migration, known as the Austronesian expansion, from Taiwan circa 3000 to 1500 BCE. Austronesians reached the Batanes Islands in the northernmost Philippines by around 2200 BCE. 

They used sails some time before 2000 BCE, in conjuction with other maritime technology, notably catamarans, outriggers, lashed lug boats and crab-saw sail enabling phases of rapid dispersal into the islands of the Indo-Pacific reaching as far as Easter Island to the east, Madagascar to the west, and culminating in the settlement of New Zealand to the south in 1250 CE.

However, Roger Blench  has challenged the conventional singular “Out of Taiwan” Austronesian expansion model, proposing instead multiple migration waves from the Chinese mainland, supported by substrate evidence in Formosan languages indicating that Austronesians assimilated earlier hunter-gatherer populations who had inhabited Taiwan for over 25,000 years.

  

Political implications from history

My analysis is that Powell and his echo-mechanics’ consider historic meanderings are anathema because their basal fear is that going back to the past would inevitably spark a deeper public appreciation of  China historic rights in the South China Sea and now onto Taiwan. These warmongers turning Sinophobes have only constructed their narratives moving forward from just UNCLOS and the Arbitral Award and integrating them to the US rules-based order.

In addition, their sleepless nights are of their own making:

First, it was the Philippines who escalated South China Sea conflicts involving American-military presence onto Batanes.

The Batanes Islands are located fewer than 200 kilometers from Taiwan — which China is part of its territory — and have hosted joint Philippine-U.S. military exercises including ship interdiction drills as recently as April.

Specific American engagements in Batanes include:

• Naval & Military Cooperation: In joint exercises like Balikatan, U.S. and Philippine forces have conducted drills, including maritime strike training and the deployment of anti-ship missile systems (such as NMESIS) in towns like Itbayat and the provincial capital of Basco.
• Infrastructure & Logistics: The U.S. and Philippine militaries have collaborated to build warehouses in Batanes. Additionally, the U.S. has been planning to build port infrastructure to assist with logistics and cargo during military mobilization.
• Historical Communications: Dating back to 1953, the U.S. Coast Guard built a Long Range Aid to Navigation (LORAN) station in the municipality of Uyugan.
• Communications Support: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has partnered with local officials to improve digital connectivity, including the deployment of premium satellite internet services in the province.

This has drawn scrutiny amid geopolitical tensions between the U.S., China, and Taiwan.

Second, in continuous violation of UNCLOS based on their over-interpretation of the 2016 Arbitral Award, Philippine government ships continue to poke the dragon, so to speak, by asserting 200 nautical miles of EEZ in the western part of the country. Two things – no automatic enforcement of sovereign rights is possible where there exists an overlap or an asymmetrical counter-claim. This must first be resolved using Article 74 of UNCLOS or any of its compulsory mechanisms under Article XV or Part VII of the Convention or under its Article 298 when a party has opted-out of compulsory procedures in favor of bilateral negotiations.

This is also in the letter and spirit of the 2002 Declaration of Conduct, where China has already extended an arm and a leg to disputants within ASEAN. But the Philippine remain recalcitrant invoking US rules-based order misleading the public away from what is permissible under conventional and customary international law.

The Marcos government position – our way or the highway.

The Philippine mule behavior has never stopped sending patrols to trespass Scarborough Shoal’s territorial sea which is under Chinese sovereignty.

PCG BRP Suluan entered 1.5 nautical miles within Scarborough’s 12 nautical-mile territorial sea in August 2025 and instead of just making a safe exit, made a dangerous “kill maneuver” making U-turn towards its starboard narrowly escaping being rammed by a Chinese Coast Guard.

During a maritime patrol on June 19, the guided-missile frigate PN BRP Diego Silang (FFG-07) forayed  inside the 23 nm radius of Scarborough Shoal’s contingent zone, and was shadowed by four Chinese military ship and chased up close by a Chinese coastguard vessel. After the Philippine gray ship crossed 24 nautical mile out of the contingent zone, the Chinese ships stopped the chase, but the Filipino mariners issued warnings and launched an AW109 helicopter in an act of braggadocio show of useless force.

The Philippine government is adamant in enforcing a mythical 200 nautical mile EEZ from the Zambales coastline 120 nautical miles away, in violation of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and a February 14, 2012 ITLOS decision whose Paragraph 169  says that the territorial sea over which sovereignty is exercised prevails over an EEZ claim over which only sovereign rights are exercised, a precedent-setting judgment  made on the maritime delimitation between Myanmar and Bangladesh.  

Third, the Philippines has no EEZ west of its archipelago. The BRP Diego Silang was patrolling a phantom sea.

Besides those EEZ claims are ridiculous. UNCLOS requires coastal states to indicate the outer limit lines of their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) on publicly available charts or provide a list of geographical coordinates, and deposit copies with the UN Secretary-General.  Article 75 states: Charts and lists of geographical coordinates “1. Subject to this Part, the outer limit lines of the exclusive economic zone and the lines of delimitation drawn in accordance with article 74 shall be shown on charts of a scale or scales adequate for ascertaining their position.”

The Philippines has not complied.

Washington-based international lawyer Arnedo Valera explains “Without defined coordinates, a claim cannot be objectively tested, peacefully contested, or credibly defended.”

So, without compliance, our government ships are generally lost at (the South China) sea.

This is where Marcos and his warmongers “my way or the highway” push comes to shove:

Sabtang, which is the southernmost island of the Batanes Group straight-line distance from the southern tip of Hengchun Township (Pingtung County, Taiwan) 105 nautical miles, technically within China’s 200 nautical mile EEZ.

It is 223 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan, more than the 200 threshold.

The Balintang Channels separates the Batanes Islands to the Babuyan Islands administered by the province of Cagayan. 

What if China enforces, as the Philippines recklessly and unilaterally enforces a mythical EEZ, protruding southwards from Taiwan, to include Batanes?

Not China but our kneejerk reaction to this Batanes lore is the one giving China this crazy idea of invading the 10 islands north of the 20^th parallel in order to assume complete control of the Bashi channel, as Taiwan reunites with China.

Mabuhay ang mga Tao at Ivatan!

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: