This Monday, May 11, 2015, file photo, taken through a glass window of a military plane, shows China’s alleged on-going reclamation of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. China’s campaign of island building in the South China Sea might soon quadruple the number of airstrips available to the People’s Liberation Army in the highly contested, environmentally delicate, and strategically vital region. (Ritchie B. Tongo/Pool Photo via AP, File)
The Philippines Should Sue China For $177 Billion In South China Sea Rent And Damages
China owes the Philippines and other countries more than $177 billion in rent and damages for China’s South China Sea fiasco. The Permanent Court of Arbitration found on Tuesday that Mischief Reef is a low-water elevation and within Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. This gives the Philippines’ indisputable legal rights to the reef. But since 1995 when China occupied the reef, China irreparably harmed the reef’s delicate marine ecosystem by dredging and building an artificial island there, including a military garrison and air-strip. By my estimate, China owes the Philippines $12.4 billion in rent and damages for Mischief Reef alone. Considering other Chinese island-building, the country owes the Philippines and other claimant countries more than $177 billion. If China doesn’t want to pay, the Philippines can sue in the courts of the U.S. and other countries where China holds property.
Billing Computation is a separate computation provided by the PesoReserve.com
Here is how to calculate what China owes. In 2015, the U.S. paid $1.97 million to the Philippines for 0.58 acres of coral reef destroyed when the USS Guardian went aground. That is a key reference point for environmental claims. Rent is even more costly. In 1988, the Philippines demanded $1.2 billion from the U.S. in rent for 6 military bases — $200 million each per year in 1988 dollars. The U.S. refused and got evicted.
By those metrics, the Philippines could sue China for about $4.6 billion of environmental damages to Mischief Reef in 2016 dollars, plus the requirement to pay $7.8 billion in rent. If China refuses to pay the combined $12.4 billion, the Philippines could seek redress in foreign civil courts to attach China’s offshore assets — of which there are plenty.
But China is liable for much more. China occupied six additional features in 1988 in the Spratley’s claimed by the Philippines, plus Scarborough Shoal in 2012.
The Philippines did not resist because they justifiably feared violence on the part of China. In 1988, Vietnam claims that China killed 64 Vietnamese soldiers who resisted on Johnson South Reef in the Spratley’s. China disputes the claim, but according to historian and BBC reporter Bill Hayton, “Strangely, a propaganda film released by the Chinese Navy in 2009 to celebrate the navy’s 60th anniversary gives more credence to the Vietnamese version. The video, now available on YouTube, was shot from one of the Chinese ships and shows the Vietnamese force standing knee deep in water as the tide rises over the reef. Huge spouts of water then erupt around the Vietnamese troops as the Chinese ships open fire. Within seconds the thin line of men has completely disappeared and 64 lie dead in the water: the machine guns are Chinese and the victims Vietnamese. The Chinese won the battle of Johnson Reef with a turkey shoot.”
China occupied six features within Philippines’ claim in 1988: Hughes Reef, Johnson South Reef, Gaven Reef, Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Cuarteron Reef. China has since dredged and built on all these reefs. Based on Philippines’ 1988 demand for rent from the U.S., each of these six features should yield (in 2016 dollars) about $10.3 billion for 29 years of use — a total of $62 billion.
China occupied Scarborough Shoal in 2012, but has not yet built there. There are no known environmental damages to the shoal, but rent for five years should be about $1.8 billion (inclusive of 2012 and 2016).
By my count, and including the $7.8 billion in rent for Mischief Reef, China owes the Philippines about $71.6 billion in rent for occupation of all 8 China-occupied features in the Philippines’ claimed part of the South China Sea.
In addition, the Court found that China destroyed a total of 48 square miles in the South China Sea through illegal dredging and artificial island building. Based on the $1.97 million paid by the U.S. to the Philippines in 2015 for the grounding of the USS Guardian, an international court could levy a $105 billion fine on China for ecological destruction of all 48 square miles, payable to the Philippines and other claimant states.
Should China refuse to pay, the Philippines and other claimants can bring civil suits in the U.S. and any other locations where China holds substantial assets. The total levy on China for rent on Philippine-claimed features, plus ecological damage to the entire South China Sea, should be about $176.6 billion: double Philippines’ annual GDP, and about a third of China’s GDP. That doesn’t include rent payable to other claimants, which should also be paid.
When China vacates its artificial islands in the South China Sea and pays this fine, plus rent to other claimants and any additional payments to the families of those killed, most attentive citizens will consider justice to have been done. Until then the international ruling in favor of the Philippines, as China has said, is just a sheet of paper. - FORBES
I worked in military intelligence for five years, including on nuclear weapons, terrorism, cyber-security, border security, and counter-insurgency. I covered and visited Asia and Europe, and worked in Afghanistan for one and a half years. I have a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University, and a B.A. and M.A. in international relations from Yale University (Summa cum laude). My company, Corr Analytics, provides political risk analysis to commercial, non-profit, and media clients, and publishes the Journal of Political Risk. I am editing a series on the South China Sea conflict, and have covered and visited Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
I cover international politics, security and political risk.
Follow me on Twitter @anderscorr. If you have any additional information related to this article, contact me at corr@canalyt.com.
Anonymous or Google Comment
Facebook Comment