[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century:
Debunking Myths
Ulises Granados (Dr.)
Coordinator of the Asia Pacific Studies Program
Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico ITAM
As it might be difficult for China and the Philippines to defend their official
claims over Scarborough as their own territory before the 20th century in
an international court, both countries should engage in constructive
negotiations over joint development. This is still the best option to avoid
deterioration of the conflict for now and the years to come.
Introduction
Scarborough Shoal (15.07’-15,14’N / 117.44-117,48’E), also known as Panatag
Shoal or Bajo de Masinloc in Philippine Tagalog and Huangyan Dao in Mandarin
Chinese, is currently subject to dispute between China and Taiwan, and the
Philippines. Being an area where the Chinese Coast Guard reportedly intercepted
some Philippine fishermen out in June 2018,1 and currently under complete
Chinese control, Scarborough Shoal is a semi-submerged shoal where dispute
initially flared back in 1997. The most severe incident occurred however during a
standoff in April 2012 that eventually led to the Chinese control of the area
(even though they are yet to station personnel there) and later to the
Philippines’s initiation of arbitral proceeding in January 2013 at the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA) against China. Even though in July 12, 2016 the
arbitral tribunal awarded the related case in favor of the Philippines, China has
refused to accept the legal award.
In spite of the relevance of current international law norms, namely the Law of
the Sea, which has becoming the accepted norm to regulate the international
order at sea, both China and the Philippines now rely on historical evidence to
justify their own territorial and jurisdictional claims. In June 2015, the
Philippines reportedly announced its intention to submit to a tribunal the so-
called Murillo Velarde Map, reportedly dated 1734, to help document historical
arguments over Scarborough Shoal.2 Therefore, it has been increasingly
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 1
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
manifest that Manila wants to base its case of sovereignty over Scarborough
Shoal also on historical grounds besides claiming maritime jurisdictions at sea on
basis of UNCLOS stipulations.
One important historical and legal question is when the shoal was discovered or
otherwise incorporated into the national territory of China or the Philippines. In
trying to debunk current crystalized narratives, the analysis centers at the turn
of the 20th century, a relevant period of history both for the colonial legacy in the
Philippines and for the end of the Qing dynasty in China. Was Scarborough Shoal
placed by China or the Philippines as part of their border territory in the South
China Sea by the turn of the 20th century or with the change of regime, or
before that? How this maritime area has been currently imagined of re-imagined
as a national frontier?
The Chinese narrative
As to when Scarborough Shoal, or Huangyan dao, became Chinese territory,
their academic historiography places at the time of the Yuan Dynasty during the
13th century.3 Unfortunately for China, there is a huge span of time even by
Chinese standards in which there is no mention to the territory. In a huge leap
forward, during the 20th century, the shoal has been listed three times, namely
in 1935 under the name of Sikabaluo jiao (Scarborough Shoal), in 1947 as
Minzhu dao (Democracy Reef/Island), and in 1983 as Huangyan dao.4 Chinese
narrative goes on claiming the area of Scarborough Shoal was also, as in the
case of the Spratlys, a fishing ground for Chinese fishermen. Wu Shicun pointed
out in 2012 that there is evidence that in The Book on Voyage Routes (Geng Lu
Bu) and other annuals there contain a complete record of the sailing routes of
Chinese fishermen there,5 a claim that if true might probably put the Chinese
presence by the end of the Ming, early-Qing dynasties.6 In a rebuttal of the
Philippine claim that Scarborough belonged to them during the Spanish colonial
period, the Chinese narrative even points out that by late-19th century, Spain
considered as territorial waters only 6 miles from the Philippine mainland.7
Some important points can be mentioned regarding the Chinese overall
narrative. First, until the beginning of the 20th century and indeed during the
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 2
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
interwar period, the claim of possession is weak. By the late-Qing, Scarborough
Shoal was known either as Changsha and Wanli Changsha, namely, part of the
Xisha Qundao. Second, when Chinese Admiral Li Zhun was ordered a naval
circuit to the Paracels in 1909, Scarborough Shoal was not included. Moreover,
this shoal was not claimed until 1933 by the time Japan and France -as the
colonial power ruling Vietnam- engaged in the so-called Nine Isles Incident over
the Spratlys, as France deployed troops in several features and proclaimed them
as territory part of the Indochina Federation. Fourth, Scarborough Shoal was
only included until 1935 in the official list of South China Sea features, which,
based on the naming of several isles in the whole region, probably led some to
believe that the shoal was only known through Western cartography. And fifth,
there is no Geng Lu Bu fishermen traditional navigation maps presented by
China for Scarborough Shoal as in the case of the Spraltys.
The Philippine narrative
As for the Philippines, claims over Scarborough Shoal have been until recently
based mainly on contemporary norms, in particular those emerging from the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and as a result of
State practice: Republic Act 9522 of July 28, 2008 defines the baselines of the
Philippine archipelago under UNCLOS, and together with the Kalayaan Island
Group (part of the Spratlys), Scarborough Shoal, named also Bajo de Masinloc in
the bill, has been put under the regime of islands as stipulated by Article 121 of
UNCLOS.8
However, the Philippines seems currently starting to base its claim over
Scarborough Shoal on historical arguments. In particular, since Manila initiated
arbitral proceedings in January 2013 at the PCA, the historical aspect of the
claim is increasingly manifest. According to such studies,9 historical sources until
late-19th century, mainly maps, identify Scarborough Shoal as the following: “P.
de Mandato”10 in 1636’s China Veteribus Sinarum Regio Nunc Incolis Tame Dicta
by Matthaus Merian; “Panacot” in 1734 Carta Hydrographica Y Chorographica de
las Yslas Filipinas, produced by the Jesuit Pedro Murillo Velarde -the now famous
Murillo Velarde Map; “B. Mansiloc” (or Bajo de Mansiloc), in a 1784 map with the
watermark PVL (for Pieter van Ley), the Map of the Pacific Ocean between the
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 3
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
Coast of California and Mexico and Japan, Philippines, and the Coast of China.
Moreover, it is claimed that even though the Treaty of Paris of 1898 put the
shoal outside the Philippines territory -as mentioned by China, in fact its 1900
Protocol (Treaty of Washington) defined islands under Philippine administration
but outside de area of the Treaty of Paris as being effectively transferred to the
US. It is the accepted opinion in the Philippines that the non-inclusion of
Scarborough Shoal in the 1898 Treaty of Paris or its 1900 Treaty of Washington
is immaterial and of no consequence as to the Philippine sovereignty.11 Philippine
sources also show that mid, late-19th century Spanish sources clearly portrayed
the shoal in several maps:12 Borneo, Iles de la Sonde, Celebes, Moloques et
Philippines, 1860;13 Carta General el Archipelago Filipino al Mando del Capitan de
navio D. Claudio Montero y Gay, 1875;14 Derrotero del Archipelago Filipino,
1879;15 and The Philippine Islands and Her People, 1898, by Dean C.
Worcester.16
Fortunately for the Philippine claim, by the turn of the century, American maps
and documents depicted with relatively more clarity Scarborough Shoal as
belonging to the Philippine archipelago, even though such analysis should not be
conclusive. Among them are: Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, 1899, the first atlas
of the archipelago, produced by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey and where
the shoal was clearly identified as Philippine territory;17 A General map of the
Islands and Provinces and Adjacent Waters of the Philippine Islands, 1902, map
that as in the previous one, clearly marks “B. Masinloc” as Philippine territory; 18
Limits of US Jurisdiction in the Philippines, 1905, map produced by the US
Hydrographic Office that shows Scarborough Shoal outside the 1898 Treaty of
Paris delimitation. Here however, it is not clear whether the shoal should be
included in the 1900 Treaty of Washington as outside the 1898 treaty. The
depiction of the shoal is not particularly emphasized and does not clearly shows
Scarborough as Philippine territory.19
Other documents include the litigation reaching the Philippine Supreme Court
over the shipwreck of the S.S. Nippon at Scarborough Shoal in 1913, an incident
that purpotedly attracted this reef area under the jurisdiction of US colonial
courts;20 The Census of the Philippine Islands, 1918, produced by the US Bureau
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 4
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
of Census and based on the 1904 census, also included the shoal as part of
Philippine territory;21 and the Map of the Philippine Islands, 1919, an official map
produced by the colonial authorities where Scarborough Shoal is clearly
identified by color and marks as being part of the Philippine territory.22
Two important conclusions must be drawn from the analysis of Philippine
historical sources. First, that maps, documents and the entire legal case of the
S.S. Nippon in 1913 from the early-20th century US colonial period portray a
more convincing evidence of Scarborough Shoal as belonging to the Philippine
archipelago. That may be not the case of earlier records. Previous late-19th
century Spanish and 17 and 18 century foreign maps do not seem to be strong
evidence as the illustrative depiction (simplicity, absence of color, etc…) of
Scarborough Shoal usually differ from the entire archipelago and it is more
similar to the depiction of the Paracel islands, for example. Second, that the
1900 Treaty of Washington may represent a strong support for the interpretation
that Scarborough Shoal is part of the Philippines in spite of being outside of the
area stipulated in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. However, interpretation may also
indicate that the sole article of the 1900 treaty was prepared to grant US rights
only to Cagayan, Sulu and Sibutu islands and adjacent islands, therefore
ambiguity over the case of Scarborough Shoal is persistent.
Value of the historical analysis of the Sino-Philippine dispute -
Conclusions
Since the Philippines started arbitral proceedings against China in 2013 at the
PCA, a corpus of historical research is growing in order to support both claims,
not only over Manila’s entitlement of maritime jurisdiction as allowed by
UNCLOS, but mainly over the claim that the feature has been colonial and now
post-colonial territory of the Philippines, essentially referring to traditional
international law’s rules of acquisition of territorial sovereignty. China, on the
other side, has not provided to the international community with further
documentary evidence supporting its historic claim over Scarborough Shoal;
historical arguments over the Spratlys and the Paracels have been
overwhelmingly abundant in comparison with those regarding Scarborough
Shoal. Chronologically, China placed Scarborough Shoal as part of its maritime
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 5
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
frontier until 1935 as part of a State practice and as a reaction of the inter-war
Japanese, British and French presence in the South China Sea, which led to a
renewed ocean identity.23 It is safe to say that the turn of the 20th century and
the imminent fall of the Qing dynasty did not lead to a particular interest in
Scarborough Shoal as it did over the Paracels features and Pratas reefs, and
later the Spratlys. Now the story is different. It is by now quite evident that
Chinese Coast Guard, paramilitary maritime militia and People´s Liberation Army
Navy units control the shoal amid new geopolitical and security considerations,
therefore its incentive to build a legal case is less than minimal.
As for the Philippine historical claim, there seems to be clear indications that by
the turn of the 20th century, after the end of the Spanish colonial period, the US
showed clearer awareness of Scarborough Shoal as being part of the Philippine
territory at the sea frontier, even though there are still a lot of research to prove
that this particular “Dangerous Ground” was of any interest of the American
colonial authorities. As evidence continues to be produced from historical
records, Philippine experts’ own research has not yet produced strong evidence
that maps before late-19th century do in fact overcome mere illustrative
purposes or mere copies of previous works when depicting Scarborough Shoal,
and those arguments that the feature has been part of the Philippine territory
since centuries ago are generally made by inference. Facing with confronting the
current Chinese narrative, in the Philippines Scarborough Shoal has been
currently re-imagined as a frontier area under the Spanish colonial rule.
However, stronger documentary evidence has come mainly from the early-20
century US sources. As for the wording of the 1898 Treaty of Paris and
particularly the 1900 Treaty of Washington, there is a high degree of ambiguity
so as to accept or not both Chinese and Philippine historical arguments over
whether Scarborough Shoal was meant to be included as part of the Philippine
territory.
In sum, it might still be rather difficult for both claimants to defend their official
claims over Scarborough as their own territory before the 20th century in an
international court such as the International Court of Justice.. It is no doubt
wiser for both countries to engage in constructive negotiations over joint
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 6
[THE MARITIME ISSUES] DECEMBER 21, 2019
development (i.e. as a common fishing ground for China, Vietnam and the
Philippines). This is still the best option to avoid deterioration of the conflict for
now and the years to come.
Dr. Ulises Granados is coordinator of the Asia Pacific Studies Program at
Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico ITAM. Author of peer reviewed books
and articles on the region, including "Coexistence and Discord, Analysis of the
Dispute of Sovereignty in the South China Sea, 1902-1952" (2010)
Notes
1
Alexis Romero, “Duterte expresses concern over fishermen’s plight in Panatag Shoal”, PhilStar,
12 June 2018, online at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/06/12/1823981/duterte-
expresses-concern-over-fishermens-plight-panatag-shoal
2
Jerry E. Esplanada, “To support claim, PH to submit 1734 map”, Inquirer, 9 June 2015. Online at
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/124398/to-support-claim-ph-to-submit-1734-map
3
Li Jinming, cong lishi yu guojihaiyangfa kan huangyandao de zhuquan guishu (On the
Sovereignty Ownership of Scarborough Reef Based on History and International Law of the Sea),
China's Borderland History and Geography Studies 4 (2001); Li Jinming, jinnia lai feilibing zai
huangyan dao de huodong pingxi (Study of Philippine activities in Scarborough Reef in recent
years), Southeast Asian Affairs 3 (2003); Zhangwei, Fangkun (ed.), zhongguo haijiang tongshi (A
complete history of China coastal areas and territorial seas), Hangzhou, Zhongzhou guji
chubanshe, 2003, p. 249.
4
Chen Keqin (ed.) Zhounguo nanhai zhudao (South China Sea Islands), Haikou, Hainan guoji
xinwen chuban zhongxin, 1996, p. 542.
5
http://ph.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/nhwt/t931870.htm
6
See Ulises Granados, “The South China Sea and Its Coral Reefs during the Ming and Qing
Dynasties: Levels of Geographical Knowledge and Political Control”, East Asian History 32/33
(2006/2007), pp. 125-127.
7
Li Jinming, cong lishi yu guojihaiyangfa. The shoal is 123 miles from the island of Luzon.
8
Republic Act No. 9522, 28 July 2008 (10 March 2009), online at
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9522_2009.html
9
Among representative sources are the following: National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority, Bajo de Masinloc -Scarborough Shoal – Maps and Documents, Diliman, University of the
Philippines Law Center, 2014; Antonio T. Carpio, The South China Sea Dispute: Philippine
Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction in the West Philippine Sea, Manila, Institute for Marine and
Ocean Affairs, 2017, online at https://www.imoa.ph/downloads/; Lowell Bautista, The Philippine
Claim to Bajo de Masinloc in the Context of the South China Sea Dispute, Journal of East Asia and
International Law 2 (September 2013): 497-529.
10
Punto de Mandato, or Point of Mandate in Spanish language.
11
Bautista, the Philippine Claim, p. 498.
12
See in particular: National mapping and Resource Information Authority, Bajo de Masinloc.
13
Bajo de Masinloc, Doc. 20.
14
Bajo de Masinloc, Doc. 21.
15
Bajo de Masinloc, Doc. 22.
16
Bajo de Masinloc, Doc. 25.
17
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 26.
18
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 29.
19
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 30.
20
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 34.
21
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 35.
22
Bajo de Mansiloc, Doc. 36.
23
Ulises Granados, As China Meets the Southern Sea Frontier: Ocean Identity in the Making,
1902-1937, Pacific Affairs 78 (3) (2005): 443-461.
Scarborough Shoal at the turn of the 20th Century: Debunking Myths - Dr. Ulises Granados 7
